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DO NOT QUOTE THREADS FROM OTHER BOARDS

 

[Laphroaig]

An indigenous person with no criminal record and no interaction with the just us system is more likely to die in custody than a non indigenous person in the same situation. A higher proportion of the indigenous population die in custody than non indigenous people across the whole population.

That isn't a better situation.

And that's it in a nutshell. The ruthless determination in some quarters to maintain the alternative rage at all costs helps nobody.

It is the hard truth that everyone needs to accept and deal with to get anywhere productive. Society as a whole has to accept that the condition of parts of Indigenous society is deplorable, and evidently getting worse year by year in terms of life outcomes. And as a society it is our fault, one way or another.

Indigenous Australia might have to accept the reality that identification of broken communities is difficult to swallow and feels like victim blaming; but it is also a process which can not be avoided if that which is broken can be repaired.

 

[perplexed]

The latest little manouvre on here seems to be trying to build a case of clandestine activity to discredit.

However, if the player's are telling the truth, why shouldn't they tell that truth to anyone they want to? Why should they have tried to keep Clarkson and Fagan's names out of the press? And why shouldn't they have legal representation that is aimng for the best outcome for them?

They should have legal representation; they should have had it from the start. And of course they can talk to anyone they want, but talking to a journalist and naming names has consequences. Their allegations were always going to be challenged by the coaches and would have to be tested somewhere or other. If they don't want to be involved in the AFL inquiry that is fair enough. But to seemingly not have an alternative in mind before going public was reckless. What has happened since the article came out has been entirely predictable, yet they seem unprepared for it.

 

[gouki88]

I’m a social science academic, and have a professional interest not just in the findings of such reports, but in their methodology and epistemology - ie what methods did they use, what type of knowledge claims did they generate out of these methods, and what sort of recommendations did they come up with, based on the former. I read the Collingwood Do Better report, the recent report into the SAS, and the leaked Hawthorn report, from this perspective.

The Hawthorn report sought to capture the experiences of Indigenous players. To that purpose, its primary methodology was interviews with only the indigenous players. The epistemologically interesting bit is - what type of knowledge claims can you generate from that methodology? You can certainly claim to produce knowledge regarding the players’ experiences - how they felt, what was important to them about the experience etc. That is not the same, however, as producing definitive knowledge regarding the facts of the matter at hand. That’s why the issue with the report is whether it overreached, in terms of whether the conclusions drawn and the recommendations made were appropriate to the methodology used, and the limits to the type of knowledge that such a methodology can generate.

That is why, even though notions of ‘multiple epistemologies’ and ‘multiple ontologies’ are all the rage in Arts Faculties, and are used to justify the legitimacy of indigenous knowledge-making practices, unfortunately the rubber hits the road when a shared, or agreed upon set of procedures for trying to determine the facts of a matter are needed. I don’t think the process they followed at Collingwood should be called a “truth-telling”. When conflicting views exist, it’s not a truth-telling for one group to claim an epistemically priveleged position and claim that only they can speak the truth. That doesn’t mean that investigations such as occurred at Collingwood and Hawthorn shouldn’t happen, but their limits should be acknowledged.

Russel’s article doesn’t show any awareness of these limitations, and treats reports of experience as though they are unequivocal facts. A more nuanced view would acknowledge that it is possible to believe the players’ account of their experiences, without assuming that such a belief is equal to believing that the players’ precise recollections are unequivocal facts.

When conflicting views need to be reconciled and some approximation of the “facts” of the matter need to be established, the judicial model is the best and fairest one that we have. It is far from perfect - as you and others have pointed out it is biased towards the interests of the ruling class - but nonetheless it’s the best system we have available for resolving conflict with consideration for fairness and procedure.

Academic rant over.

Does it? My recollection is that the language used in the article doesn't line up with the description you're putting forth.

An external review commissioned by the Hawthorn Football Club will reveal allegations that key figures at the AFL club demanded the separation of young First Nations players from their partners, and pressured one couple to terminate a pregnancy for the sake of the player's career.

The review document, handed to Hawthorn's senior management two weeks ago and now with the AFL integrity unit, will allege that club staff involved include four-time premiership coach Alastair Clarkson and former assistant Chris Fagan, now the coach of the Brisbane Lions

Three families involved told ABC Sport about incidents in which club staff allegedly bullied and removed First Nations players from their homes and relocated them elsewhere, telling them to choose between their careers and their families.

In some cases, coaches allegedly coerced at least two players to remove SIM cards from their phones and insert new ones in attempts to cut them off from their partners and focus them entirely on the club's pursuit of football success. In each case, the player was a young First Nations draftee in his first five years with the club.

But the gravest accusations relate to the club's alleged intimidation tactics to separate couples at the earliest stages of pregnancies and parenthood, and the alleged demand that one player should instruct his partner to terminate a pregnancy — actions the families say created multi-generational traumas.

This is all in the preamble (for lack of a better term) before the in-depth detailing of the stories of the three parties. Has it been changed since the initial publishing to have more emphasis on the alleged nature of the claims? The emphasis seems to me to be on recounting their stories.

Do not disagree with any of the other points on Arts Faculties. I have read the expression 'multiple epistemologies' enough in the last 2 years to last a lifetime.

 

[eastfreo75]

That could well be the case. However talking to him on the record without any legal advice seems fraught.

Depends, if they got any assets.

 

[Section 5]

400 pages and we still don't know what will happen to Clarkson and Fagan coaching in 2023
600 possible by December when we still may not know what will happen to Clarkson and Fagan

 

[eastfreo75]

Thanks for that.

The idea that the ex players went out of their way to get Clarkson and co is ridiculous.

Ex players only spoke when they were approached.

 

[eastfreo75]

400 pages and we still don't know what will happen to Clarkson and Fagan coaching in 2023
600 possible by December when we still may not know what will happen to Clarkson and Fagan

I’ve got a feeling they will both coach.

AFL don’t want to open a can of worms and want this to go away.

Massive pressure will be applied to the ex players to change their accounts.

Long live racism.

 

[Shadow89]

Yeah and apparently power imbalance means I'm not allowed to disagree with them because its unfair.

But apparently it's perfectly fair to not have to acknowledge their own dual bias - as a result of being both family friends with Dr Hood and supporting the club with the incoming coach under investigation.

We all have to acknowledge how we're all so hopelessly biased because of Jackson's article, but they don't have to acknowledge that they're hopelessly biased against Jackson - because of the aforementioned.

The verbal gymnastics is a sight to behold.. Couldn't make this shit up, lol

 

[Del191229]

So Egan bad too now?
Given the ABC article wasn't based on the report and it's not hard to get a list of past players I don't know why this leak from Egan idea exists, other than from prior trying to discredit the whole thing

Egan did fine until the report leaked.

Jackson's article is bases on the report.

It's literally what he starts with.

 

[Del191229]

- it would not surprise now if the poster was revealed to be the actual head of Dr Hood's PR team.

North posters will adore this line.

 

[Kwality]

They should have legal representation; they should have had it from the start. And of course they can talk to anyone they want, but talking to a journalist and naming names has consequences. Their allegations were always going to be challenged by the coaches and would have to be tested somewhere or other. If they don't want to be involved in the AFL inquiry that is fair enough. But to seemingly not have an alternative in mind before going public was reckless. What has happened since the article came out has been entirely predictable, yet they seem unprepared for it.

The AFL administration keen to protect their patch. IF anyone is to go under the bus, Gil wants to make that decision but not be accountable for the AFLs involvement.
Reeks of the ASADA action & Essendon.

 

[Del191229]

Yeah and apparently power imbalance means I'm not allowed to disagree with them because its unfair.

I'd characterise your posting to me, and others, more as trolling than any attempt to engage in genuine discussion that involves agreeing or disagreeing.

But I'm an optimist at heart so I'll try again.

What do you think of this going to the Yoo-Rook Commission?

If you don't think that's a good idea, why not?

 

[Del191229]

Unfair on Hood. Nothing to suggest that she'd stoop to this level.

By unfair you mean misogynist, he's assuming the little woman can't look after herself

 

[Kwality]

Depends, if they got any assets.

Sad if it is the only way Clarkson & Fagan have of clearing their name.

 

[eastfreo75]

Sad if it is the only way Clarkson & Fagan have of clearing their name.

Your assumption is that are not guilty of any wrong doings.

Mud does stick regardless if they win a court case against the ex players.

The reality is that you get the justice that you can afford.

Clarkson and co are rich, powerful men with backers. The Ex players are pretty powerless.

I wouldn’t be surprised that Clarkson and co win a court case but in my eyes that doesn’t proof anything either way.

 

[sr36]

By unfair you mean misogynist, he's assuming the little woman can't look after herself

I see nothing misogynistic in the suggestion that a club President would utilise PR.

You can't just claim misogyny every time there is an insinuation regarding Hood. Its particularly ridiculous when you're defending a coach regarding insinuations of racism.

 

[eastfreo75]

I see nothing misogynistic in the suggestion that a club President would utilise PR.

You can't just claim misogyny every time there is an insinuation regarding Hood. Its particularly ridiculous when you're defending a coach regarding insinuations of racism.

Defending somebody without facts is incomplete regardless if you are XX or XY.

 

[ferball]

Keep shooting the messenger bro

He wasn't just the messenger after he made that tweet.

 

[Laphroaig]

Thanks for that.

The idea that the ex players went out of their way to get Clarkson and co is ridiculous.

The idea that somebody else went out of their way to get Clarkson is, however, credible.

I'm not a fan of Barrett at most times, but I think he was the one who posed the question first. The very specific and relatively short time frame specified for the review is more than a little bit peculiar.

It's no great stretch of imagine that a hypothetical somebody who has a track record of trying to get Clarkson might have held the belief that if we ask these questions in this narrow timeframe we might get the scarlet finger pointed at Clarkson.

Which might even have the result of deflecting attention away from the hypothetical person's own glass house.....

 

[Kwality]

Your assumption is that are not guilty of any wrong doings.

Mud does stick regardless if they win a court case against the ex players.

The reality is that you get the justice that you can afford.

Clarkson and co are rich, powerful men with backers. The Ex players are pretty powerless.

I wouldn’t be surprised that Clarkson and co win a court case but in my eyes that doesn’t proof anything either way.

I dont expect to get to the bottom of these claims & the allegations will certainly stick.

Kids robbed of their AFL dream & looking to blame others for not making the grade, might have an axe to grind. I've not seen anyone admit they werent good enough.

Its certainly not new that clubs try to lead recruits away from activities/people who might contribute to a player not reaching the players potential.

Justice isnt likely for any of the parties.

 

[Laphroaig]

Clarkson and co are rich, powerful men with backers. The Ex players are pretty powerless.

Yeah nah.

The ex players have seriously heavyweight representation.

 

[Gralin]

Egan did fine until the report leaked.

Jackson's article is bases on the report.

It's literally what he starts with.

Jackson's article is based on interviews with families that took part in the truth telling process for the report.

There is zero indication that Jackson or the ABC had access to the report prior to publishing the article.

I'd characterise your posting to me, and others, more as trolling than any attempt to engage in genuine discussion that involves agreeing or disagreeing.

But I'm an optimist at heart so I'll try again.

What do you think of this going to the Yoo-Rook Commission?

If you don't think that's a good idea, why not?

I have no issue with the Yorrook Justic Commission being involved, but do they want to be?

Is this part of their reason for existing? I don't know. I don't really think its up to you or me to decide how this should be handled.

I don' think the AFL investigating themselves is a good idea but remember this all started because the club commissioned a report, just because you don't like how this is playing our for your club isn't a good reason for you to be doing what you are doing

He wasn't just the messenger after he made that tweet.

no that is a separate issue, the article is the article

it was published and from then on he's been attacked by members of the AFL community

but yeah its fine you can keep bitching about that on your team board, or the fourth estate board or a thread about it because its not relevant to much else

 

[Forward Press]

just because you don't like how this is playing our for your club isn't a good reason for you to be doing what you are doing

Wish I could like this multiple times - this is plainly evident but there is more denialism in this poster than Donald Trump's office.

 

[Del191229]

I see nothing misogynistic in the suggestion that a club President would utilise PR.

You can't just claim misogyny every time there is an insinuation regarding Hood. Its particularly ridiculous when you're defending a coach regarding insinuations of racism.

I love the way you've invented me "defending: Clarkson.

Its a testament to just how poorly Rusty handled this.

I want the investigations handled by a body with the powers of a Royal Commission.

 

[Del191229]

I have no issue with the Yorrook Justic Commission being involved, but do they want to be?

Is this part of their reason for existing? I don't know. L

Oh man.

I've posted the link to The Age article where they invite the participants to come to them and make clear they see this as part of their remit multiple times.

I'd recommend you get up to speed on this whole thing.

It's moved a great deal since Rusty's story


I'm fine with how this is playing out for North too.

Clsrkson is starting on his contracted date.

The only impact on North was the President had to whack a a little dog yapping defamation round the chops until he scurried off with his tail between his legs