NO TROLLS Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed. Part 2

[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


DO NOT QUOTE THREADS FROM OTHER BOARDS

 

[perplexed]

I think it's relevant. It talks to his character and whether you believe that he did what all those people said he did.

In his mind, in the context of protecting his players, their reputations and the club, I don't think there's much he wouldn't do. That's his problem. He's practically admitting that he can't guarantee he won't over-step the line.

He needs to learn that these are adults who can look after themselves. He doesn't need to cross the line to protect them from reporters or pregnant partners.

Spur of the moment abusive of a journo is a very different thing to plotting with others to break-up the players' relationships. Ask yourself, why are you trying so hard to link the two?

 

[sr36]

It's not. He is an angry, erratic and complicated bloke - but that isn't relevant here. Bringing this stuff into the Hawthorn investigation thread is like his supporters bringing up how he does charity work or the Rioli's like him.

It's all irrelevant in a way, but it's also all character related and thus relevant in shaping what we think probably happened and character does come into findings in disciplinary hearings, so it may be relevant to an inquiry too.

To me there's a fair bit of character evidence that Clarko isn't a racist prick and that he has players interests at heart.

But this latest statement adds to the perception of him being so confident that he's likely to ignore the views of others if he feels he is doing the right thing. So if he thought it was in the best interests of a kid to persuade a kid to break up with a partner, have an abortion, etc . would he do it?

It impacts my opinion about whether we believe the events are likely to have occurred.

 

[sr36]

Spur of the moment abusive of a journo is a very different thing to plotting with others to break-up the players' relationships. Ask yourself, why are you trying so hard to link the two?

The spur of the moment comment isn't relevant. His rationalisation might be. As a poster pointed out, he doesn't give a shit (about what others think). Which is fantastic when he's right. But pretty dangerous when he's not.

 

[perplexed]

It's all irrelevant in a way, but it's also all character related and thus relevant in shaping what we think probably happened and character does come into findings in disciplinary hearings, so it may be relevant to an inquiry too.

To me there's a fair bit of character evidence that Clarko isn't a racist prick and that he has players interests at heart.

But this latest statement adds to the perception of him being so confident that he's likely to ignore the views of others if he feels he is doing the right thing. So if he thought it was in the best interests of a kid to persuade a kid to break up with a partner, have an abortion, etc . would he do it?

It impacts my opinion about whether we believe the events are likely to have occurred.

None of the accusations relate to him acting independently and ignoring the views of others. They are all calculated actions done with others. Doesn't mean he didn't do these things, just isn't relevant in any way.

 

[sr36]

None of the accusations relate to him acting independently and ignoring the views of others. They are all calculated actions done with others. Doesn't mean he didn't do these things, just isn't relevant in any way.

Disagree. I don't for a moment think Clarko or the others had racist intents. If this stuff occurred, it's most likely because they saw a problem and came up with their own solution without seeking out or ignoring expert views on the solution. His rationalisation of his recent comment makes me view him as more likely to do that
.

 

[Area51]

Honestly interested to know if there is any Clarko behavior that North supporters wouldn't be explaining away? Where do you draw the line?

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

Honestly interested to know if there is any Clarko behavior that North supporters wouldn't be explaining away? Where do you draw the line?

Tied to finishing position at the end of the year.

Or 3-4 years from now.

 

[Area51]

Tied to finishing position at the end of the year.

Or 3-4 years from now.

That's the impression I am forming.

 

[perplexed]

Disagree. I don't for a moment think Clarko or the others had racist intents. If this stuff occurred, it's most likely because they saw a problem and came up with their own solution without seeking out or ignoring expert views on the solution . His rationalisation of his recent accusations make me view him as more likely to do that
.

Fair enough. Though I'm not sure that anything we've seen from Clarkson over the last week is new, his rationalisation included. I don't know why this would change your mind on anything, this stuff is almost proforma for an AFL coach (Bevo, Hardwick, Malthouse, Sheedy, etc...).

 

[sr36]

Fair enough. Though I'm not sure that anything we've seen from Clarkson over the last week is new, his rationalisation included. I don't know why this would change your mind on anything, this stuff is almost proforma for an AFL coach (Bevo, Hardwick, Malthouse, Sheedy, etc...).

The comment didn't surprise me. Clarko walking back the apology and basically saying that he thinks it was good that he stuck up for his player did surprise me. I wasn't surprised that he thought that, but that he said that surprised me.

It doesn't change my opinion. I already thought it most likely happened. But it does re-enforce my view of how and why this might have happened - a bloke who is going to back his perspective - regardless of the views of others. The flip side is that he probably wouldn't have been a great and innovative coach without that trait.

He's a great. My reading of the whole thing is a bit Shakespearean though, with the great strength also being the great weakness.

 

[the big lebowski]

Honestly interested to know if there is any Clarko behavior that North supporters wouldn't be explaining away? Where do you draw the line?

For me personally, if it was proved he forced his two players to do something against their will (kidnapped them), that would be a clear crossed line. I don’t believe he did that though, as I believe the players asked for help from the coaches at the time. But I’ll keep an open mind when the report comes out. Not that I’ll need to, as if it’s proved he did bully them into doing something against their will, he be deregistered.

As for teeing off on a journo and her two cameramen. The more he holds the media account for their predatory practices the better. I hate the media with a passion. Or most of it at least.

What were your red lines etc? How did you justify Martin threatening to kill a woman or your coach having an inappropriate relationship with a younger, hotter staff member before dumping his wife. Obviously those instances weren’t line crossing for you (I assume), but did they come close?

 

[perplexed]

The comment didn't surprise me. Clarko walking back the apology and basically saying that he thinks it was good that he stuck up for his player did surprise me. I wasn't surprised that he thought that, but that he said that surprised me.

It doesn't change my opinion. I already thought it most likely happened. But it does re-enforce my view of how and why this might have happened - a bloke who is going to back his perspective - regardless of the views of others. The flip side is that he probably wouldn't have been a great and innovative coach without that trait.

He's a great. My reading of the whole thing is a bit Shakespearean though, with the great strength also being the great weakness.

I think I agree with all of that. Though don't talk too much Shakespeare. Osho might come at you with some obscure quote you'll have to google.

 

[perplexed]

Honestly interested to know if there is any Clarko behavior that North supporters wouldn't be explaining away? Where do you draw the line?

Playing three ruckmen in the wet.

 

[sr36]

Playing three ruckmen in the wet.

Bucks did that one day. We lost convincingly...

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Five months on, Clarkson yet to address Hawks inquiry as he awaits documents

Sources familiar with Alastair Clarkson’s situation said the North Melbourne coach has not put forward a written or oral submission to the four-member panel appointed by the AFL because he was still awaiting some documentation from Hawthorn.

www.theage.com.au

Hurry up Hawthorn so we can settle this shitshow one way or another.

 

[Saucery]

Five months on, Clarkson yet to address Hawks inquiry as he awaits documents

Sources familiar with Alastair Clarkson’s situation said the North Melbourne coach has not put forward a written or oral submission to the four-member panel appointed by the AFL because he was still awaiting some documentation from Hawthorn.

www.theage.com.au

Hurry up Hawthorn so we can settle this shitshow one way or another.

Actually it does peak my interest as to why he requires documents from another entity before he engages with an AFL, er independent investigation?

Surely he believes in his position so why not just get up and tell the truth?

 

[ferball]

‘Can’t guarantee I won’t do it again’: Clarko’s surprise call after threatening comment to reporter

‘Can’t guarantee I won’t do it again’: Clarko’s surprise call after threatening comment to reporter

www.foxsports.com.au

And??

 

[ferball]

Your time will come

So will yours.

 

[mcnulty]

Actually it does peak my interest as to why he requires documents from another entity before he engages with an AFL, er independent investigation?

I would assume because he feels that the club has documentation that supports his position. And it’s hardly “another entity”- it’s the club who commissioned the report and was his then employer.

 

[Saucery]

I would assume because he feels that the club has documentation that supports his position.

Really, based on what?

Why would a club hide evidence that clears one of it's greatest ever coaches?

Sorry doesn't pass the pub test.

Sounds like a convenient reason not to testify to me.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Really, based on what?

Why would a club hide evidence that clears one of it's greatest ever coaches?

Sorry doesn't pass the pub test.

Sounds like a convenient reason not to testify to me.

Nobody is implying that Hawthorn are hiding evidence.

 

[mcnulty]

Why would a club hide evidence that clears one of it's greatest ever coaches?

I don’t think I said that. Or even remotely suggested that.

 

[Makeshift Park]

Really, based on what?

Why would a club hide evidence that clears one of it's greatest ever coaches?

Sorry doesn't pass the pub test.

Sounds like a convenient reason not to testify to me.

To give hawthorn the benefit of the doubt, I assume he’s talking about something archived which require multiple steps to retrieve - maybe he sent emails from an old hawthorn server which he no longer has access to?

 

[sr36]

Actually it does peak my interest as to why he requires documents from another entity before he engages with an AFL, er independent investigation?

Surely he believes in his position so why not just get up and tell the truth?

His submission will be a response to allegations against him. Any documents that support his version of events will strengthen his submission.

Its not just a matter of him telling his version of events. He needs to support his version with as much evidence as he can muster.

 

[Square Peg]

Actually it does peak my interest as to why he requires documents

The whole thing is turning into an episode of Twin Piques