As you would in his position.
You cannot presume to know what I would have done.
Would I have flown off the handle at a child in front of a national audience and a stadium full of people without knowing for sure what she meant?
Doubt it very much. Would I have made a complaint for the AFL to investigate if I felt that aggrieved by a child's comment? Who knows. Would have wanted to be 100% sure before I made a Federal Case out of it.
Yep... he ran with the racism angle
What were his exact words about it the next day? I know they've been posted but I don't have the links.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Pretty sure you know he went with "face of racism is a 13 year old girl" line. Even 12 hours after the event.
So, let's knock that over. On the field, after the game, the next day. We've heard this part. You think that wasn't fair.
No. It was unfair to accuse her of a racial slur - not once, at the time, not twice, after the game and certainly not the third time at the press conference without some sort of investigation on his part. He's dead set lucky if you ask me, that her parents were not "Tania and James Hird" types and took him to court over it.
What position did he finally arrive at?
"Finally" being the operative word.
Finally, AFTER labelling her the "face of racism" he conceded that she may have not had the benefit of an education or parenting that would have prevented an outburst of this nature in the first place. He had ample time to consider his words.
How does that match up with your position?
It doesn't.[/QUOTE]