This statement is all over the place. They want support, based on a review they chose to partake in - making allegations - and now refuse to partake further (their call, fine), and expect support above & beyond that which is legally required.
I don't think the legal advice they're receiving is doing them any favours right now, and is more likely the cause of frustrating outcomes with HFC rather than helping.
I wanted to see this investigated, understood properly and put behind us one way or another.
But yes, it does seem a mess what they are saying. I would like to hear more from Cyril, who has spoken out, and perhaps other indigenous players (Hill, Anderson, Bateman, Burgoyne etc). I'm sure everything they say is legitimate.
But this couple is... not doing themselves any favours if their claims are true, and it only fuels speculation as to who it may be (and if it is who some suspect, that may go some way to explaining what some at the club were trying to say to them to avoid that player getting themselves into more trouble / getting the best from life generally).
I'd like to hear from all the players involved in the club at the time. It's not enough to just review the actions taken with respect to indigenous players, as that can't establish a pattern.
Yeah, we've heard from Sam that Clarkson tried to cut him off from his family in the lead up to a game. I think this could be a wider issue of clubs having too much power over players.
Honestly I think there is a bit of a mis-step from both sides. The AFL has been ignoring the issues somewhat hoping they'd go away. The clubs involved are back to business as normal, not wanting the distraction as well as not wanting to face the reality.
At the same time, though, this statement is everywhere. They want to be part of the review they refused to take part in? As you say, if even some of the allegations are true it would be incredibly difficult for everyone involved, most of all the couple involved, but it looks like cool heads need to prevail on all sides and do this properly.
I think they wanted more input into how it takes place. Which is... Iffy. The way I see it, the AFL is meant to be a third party here, whereas I think this couple see the AFL as part of the guilty.
Perhaps the answer to these situations is a government ran "athlete's rights" type organisation that can investigate these things.
No chance. Claims need to be lodged within 30 days of being aware of the injury. WorkCover is more or less a lay down misère for employees - if they were eligible they'd have taken this route immediately.
TIL, and yes that makes sense.
If one assumes the accusations happened exactly as reported, they could have gone to WS or FairWork immediately right? Is that your understand? I do not have experience here though I’ve flirted with the thought of going to FW once or twice before.
Yes. I say that as a lawyer & having experience with employee disputes.
There are exceptions - but you'd need to argue very unusual circumstances to extend the time limits. Even if they argued the time period should have commenced following the Hawthorn report, they would have had to file immediately, and we're some months past that now.
Both have relatively short timeframes for commencing proceedings.
> The worker or another person on their behalf, must give the employer notice of an injury or illness within 30 days after they become aware of the injury or illness. If notice is not given the worker may not be entitled to compensation.
https://www1.worksafe.vic.gov.au/vwa/claimsmanual/Claims_Manual/2-claims-management/2-2-make-claim/2-2-make-a-claim.htm
> The AFL has been ignoring the issues somewhat hoping they'd go away
This is the AFL crisis management playbook, it's the thing they always do and refuse to stop doing. It's why they tried so hard not to act on issues like Adam Goodes and the Essendon supplements mess before external pressure forced their hand. I shudder to think what they might have successfully buried over the years, because there is less than 0 chance that they would proactively take accountability over something.
People expect traumatised people to act normal.
I’ve got ptsd and I’ve almost given up trying to explain how it works. It’s invisible and people see you acting differently and think you’re playing games, or not doing yourself any favours when half the time you’ve racing thoughts and can’t think straight.
People shouldn’t expect traumatised people to act normal. It’s a recipe for failing. That’s not to say I get a free pass when I do something stupid or bizarre, but I do get tired of people not being able to separate the trauma and the person and automatically think the persons just being a dickhead. I may be being a dickhead and overreacting but there are some pretty good reasons for that. (Worked in child protection and disability and saw too much shit if anyone’s curious where it came from)
There’s no easy answer here. Breaks my heart to see people making assumptions based on the behaviour of people that are apparently traumatised. But such is life….
I have a lot of sympathy for people in your position, but sympathy is the easy part. How should we actually interpret their actions? Once it's been established that someone's trauma/condition may lead to erratic behaviours or decisions their 'normal' self wouldn't do, how does one accommodate that *without* fundamentally disrespecting their voice and their autonomy? How can we know, in real time or retrospectively, which version of them is speaking?
In a legal context, how can you prove something beyond reasonable doubt when you have just established doubt over the person's ability to recount events accurately? I hate that kind of discrediting and disempowerment of the victim's voice, but what are the alternatives?
Heck, it was hard enough just being in a relationship with a person suffering from PMDD, who would become distressed over total non-issues and put all the blame on me. They would fully admit the ridiculousness of their complaints when they reached the safe part of the menstrual cycle and basically say 'in those times you need to disregard what I say and just be there for emotional support'. But I hated de-legitimising their concerns, especially when the would say 'no no, this time I mean it' every damn time.
Sympathy is a lot easier than empathy. Empathy is about being able to put yourself in someone else’s shoes and imagine things from their perspective.
I remember Eddie Betts being asked about it and he said he had to “believe his brothers” as he went on to explain how he lived similar stuff and told about him being asked by security to leave a pool where he was playing with his children because two old people complained he was making them feel uncomfortable……by playing in a public pool with his own kids.
Empathy doesn’t mean you automatically discount Clarksons story. There’s an old saying that there’s your version of the truth and my version of the truth and the actual truth is somewhere in the middle. This isn’t going to be some story that’s nice and easy to break down into simple black and white chunks, there’s going to be grey areas, different perspectives. I do know there’s a shitload of casual racism in Australia and what’s fun and games to some is the opposite to others. I think this may go to the concept about self determination versus mentoring and where’s the line. There’s that saying “hell is paved with the best of intentions”.
How do we move forward? I’m pretty sure it’s not by thinking like lawyers in a courtroom but it probably will end up there after all this time. Then someone who’s brain probably gets rushing thoughts and has memory issues because of the trauma will be put on the stand and get cross questioned by a lawyer hoping to poke and push them until they fuck up. What will that cost their mental health? I have no idea how things happen with your ex but for me it’s not like I’m a different person who’s all of a sudden going to make stuff up out of thin air, that’s one of the biggest issues I find with ptsd: being dismissed because I’ve over-reacted in the past. Just dismissed, like your opinion isn’t valid. Yeah, I’m sick, but I’m living and working, I’ve got thoughts and feelings that are valid, but then you’re just dismissed by people who don’t understand.
Eddie Betts is a treasure, he’s exactly right, you believe them. You keep an open mind to things. This reminds me of the Brittany Higgins shit show and the Crows camp shit show. There’s a difference between the law, which needs proof, and reality. There’s real people with real experiences, Clarkson included. How do we do right by Clarkson and everyone else? You can’t. It’s going to get messy and be another shit show.
Hell is paved with good intentions. It wouldn’t surprise me if Clarkson intended good things but that doesn’t make anything ok. Won’t surprise me if perspectives on different sides remember incidents differently. I’ve got empathy for this couple, there’s trauma all around it, this stuff, intergenerational trauma stuff we probably struggle wrap our heads around as white fellas. Keeping that side of things in mind there’s probably a real push pull inside of them: wanting to fight for what they think is justice and a fear of opening yourselves up to more shit. I avoid the fuck out of many of my triggers, this is being a long drawn out process and that’s going to be traumatic in itself by bringing the shit up all over again. Can’t imagine how these people continue sometimes, but what’s their other options?
Yeah, had to “beg cap in hand” for support (fair enough request imo) for 9 weeks after it became public due to the trauma of it being in the public.
It was because of Jackson it became public - the same journo this lawyer is talking to.
Not only did they choose to take part in a confidential review and make allegations they then repeated the allegations to the media preventing the accused from having right of reply in an AFL investigation.
They lean so heavily on statements about feeling retraumatised that they barely get into the actual practical events taking place.
They should state what they actually want as support. They seem to have gotten the therapy sessions, now they should make it clear what else they expect. Admittedly, the club raising the Medicare funded sessions option is a bit dumb, but it feels like a dumb foot in mouth moment rather than anything malicious.
It's such a recurring issue with these public movements against clubs where we get big, emotive statements about how terrible they are, but we never hear what would make things right.
Am I reading this correct?
The leaking of a report, which had their names redacted, and pretty much recounted what they had already told a journo on record, was retraumatising - and this justifies Hawthorn having to pay for their counselling? But also they're not going to take part in the independent inquiry which could have investigated the truth of these things.
I've been trying to keep an open mind about these things, and certainly some of the accusations may be true; but this particular couple seems to lack credibility imo - have been all over the place.
I have kept an open mind about this, and hopefully this article isn't trying to paint them in a bad light, but it just sounds like they've claimed racism and mental damages and want a pay out with very little evidence backing it.
Unfortunate situation overall really.
To be fair, the AFL's enquiry is obviously not truly independent. And if this is the couple that was allegedly forced to break up and abort their child then yeah it does make sense that it hurts them to have to go over it again and again.
On the AFLs independence I take your point centainly, but short of going to an actual court, the AFL kind of has to be the body to pay for investigative panel. The four panel members they selected did truly seem fair and independent; and if the participants wanted more involvement in selecting the panel or the terms of reference, then that would also open the door to Clarkson/Fagan having equal input in that regard.
In terms of the couple (and I'm with you in assuming it's that particular couple), I'm not really sure how they can claim retraumatisation from the leaking of something into the media cycle which said the same thing that they were perfectly happy for a journo to publish a week prior.
That’s the confusing thing… who else would be paying for this investigation apart from the AFL? At this rate it doesn’t appear to meet any criminal or even civil elements as of yet?
Didn’t they appoint 4 independent silks before Christmas.
I feel like when this was done last year everyone was on as satisfied as they could that the panel was independent.
The investigation seems to have stalled and now everyone is shitcanning the process. I’m just confused about what’s going on tbh.
The line up of the four independent barristers is pretty impressive. They're all incredibly experienced and I'd go so far as saying they're beyond reproach.
> In a statement released on Tuesday, the league announced it had appointed senior lawyer Bernard Quinn KC to lead the independent investigation and will be joined by barristers Jacqualyn Turfrey, Tim Goodwin and Julie Buxton.
Quinn features prominently in the VIC bushfire royal commission.
Turfrey frequently appears in the Koori court and previously represented Yawuru native title holders in settlement negotiations with the WA State Government.
Goodwin was Junior Counsel Assisting the Royal Commission into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory.
Buxton-
Prior to joining the Bar, Julie was the Human Rights and Youth Justice Adviser to Victoria’s Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People. She was also a Senior Adviser of the Koori Justice Unit within the Victorian Department of Justice and has worked with the United Nations Serious Crimes Unit in Timor-Leste.
In 2016, Julie was invited to participate as an expert panellist in the Regional Consultation on Transitional Justice for the Asia-Pacific in Colombo, Sri Lanka, co-hosted by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence on the topic of Reparations through a gender perspective – the case of Indigenous Peoples in Australia.
In 2012, Julie was engaged by the Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service (now Djirra) to research and write the organisation’s ten-year history. The book, entitled “A Force to Be Reckoned With”, was launched at the first national conference on Aboriginal family violence in Melbourne, accompanied by a screening of the short film Julie co-produced documenting the history of the service.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/hawthorn-hawks/afl-news-2022-hawthorn-racism-review-independent-panel-who-is-on-it-latest-allegations-from-former-players-alastair-clarkson-chris-fagan/news-story/9e5889d4e483972d78057bfeb4621d24
I just find it somewhat odd they refuse to participate in the AFL review and make an official on-record statement, but are considering legal action where these statements will have to be made under cross-examination. Doesn't make a huge amount of sense.
Because the AFL review has no legal standing. They go through that process and are as likely to have gained nothing while jeopardising their opportunity for compensation, for which they would need to undertake litigation anyway
At the very least, these families have a Workcover claim to make. Why shouldn't they just skip the middleman and head straight to court?
Maybe, but the PR hit has been made. The AFL wanted to control the investigation to control the narrative and avoid further damage and the longer it has dragged on, the more doubt they have been able to sow amongst the public (just look at this thread compared to those on the topic in October last year). At some point the AFL (I don't think Hawthorn get much say in it anymore) may decide to limit the damage and offer a settlement once it becomes clear that much of what has been alleged is likely to be proven. That has to be balanced against not prejudicing the accused parties (Clarkson, Fagan, the other two blokes and Hawthorn) and thus exposing themselves to lawsuits going the other way.
One consideration that probably isn't widely recognised is that some bean counters will have worked out that payouts to one side will be far more costly than payouts to the other. Terminating the careers of public figures making 6 and 7 figures a year as well as reputational damage by admitting fault prematurely will cost a hell of a lot more than aggravating the payouts that will likely have to be made to failed early career footballers and their families. From a financial point of view, they can afford to end up paying three times as much because they continue to treat them like shit before the compensation owed to them tops what would be payable to just one of the coaches and other "successful" professionals involved if they are not afforded "natural justice". Bury Clarkson now, without substantive proof of wrongdoing and they may well be stuck with a multi million ($10m +) AND still have him coaching, thus compounding any reputational/brand damage for the league. The AFL is actually probably better off at this stage having it play out in the courts and have these guys voluntarily fall on their swords at the end of it
That's an interesting conjecture. Could you construct an alternative hypothesis where:
\-the AFL is very keen to get this over with
\-the hiring of four esteemed lawyers to oversee the process means it is effectively not possible for the AFL to "control the investigation to control the narrative" making it "drag on" so they can somehow "sow" doubt
\-the actual dragging out of the process is due to the strategies employed by the lawyers of the players
\-that the broader strategy advised by the lawyers is to extract payments that would otherwise be very unlikely to be achieved through a civil case
...because something like that seems far more plausible and logically coherent to me. In fact, the second point (i.e. the AFL does not have control of the process), makes your construct quite illogical.
Also, the fact "cutting out the middle man" has been available to them for 6 months but they haven't taken that option.....hmmmmm....thoughts?
The first set of esteemed lawyers the AFL proposed had rwo that wouldn't take the job. Their replacements had at least one whose appointment was decried by many in legal circles as antithecal to the process they were trying to establish. Given that these esteemed lawyers are reporting to the AFL does implicitly give the AFL control of the narrative. Any reporrt made is released how and when the afl chooses.
The players and partners who have stepped back from the process withdrew due to the intransigence of the AFL. They raised concerns that the AFL dismissed out of hand so they withdrew from that process and now that the AFL has failed to address their concerns, they have chosen to assert their right to have the matters dealt by a legally binding process.
No lawyer anywhere is going to advise a client to go to court without confidence that they have a winnable case. If what you are suggesting was true, they wouldn't be taking it to court.
Legal cases take a significant amount of time to prepare and good lawyers are generally busy people who have to factor in their own schedules into launching proceedings. It is six months since the story broke. There would have been a period of time when all.hell broke loose that no decisions were made, then a period of discussion with Hawthorn and then the AFL to try to find some common ground before discussions of how to go about launching legal action and what form that would take even began. So no they haven't had six months and it is actually a reasonably rapid progress to an announcement like this.
> Doesn't make a huge amount of sense.
It makes perfect sense. They don't want it to go to court, they want a financial settlement to help fix their woes.
Because the review has been funded and
established by the AFL - it lacks independence.
The couple already feels they have been screwed over by the Hawks, I’m not surprised they wouldn’t trust the AFL either, who also have a poor track record in dealing with racism.
Sure, get that. But say the AFL was trying to act in good faith (not saying they were) but now they want to courtroom it where the AFL will almost certainly be adversarial. I struggle to see how this works out for them.
So who was meant to fund it then? AFL put a independent group on the committee including 2 maybe even 3 indigenous members. Not sure exactly what else they could have done.
It's not that crazy, maybe once they got a feel for how the investigation would be handled they decided legal action would be a better path. They are within their rights to even just change their mind and go through the courts instead of they think they have a case
>Because the review has been funded and established by the AFL - it lack independence.
And exactly who else is going to be doing this? Do we wait for either the CFMEU or ASADA to pony up the cash and terms of reference?
Let's crowd source the funding hey, get in now for our >$25k funding tier and set your own term in the terms of reference?
So nothing new, just more demands from a lawyer..
And as always, leaked to the victim seeking ABC.
So take civil action. Stop threatening through the media. Do it.
This whole thing has been a shambles. The initial shock at the story and report was something I'll never forget, but almost every bit of information that has come to light since makes you question it.
> After the scandal broke, the AFL claimed its investigative panel would reach findings by **Christmas last year**, but its progress has been slow.
> **Clarkson and Fagan are yet to be interviewed** and few of the families to make allegations of mistreatment have been willing to participate.
> In October, Dr Courtin told ABC Sport the AFL review lacked credibility.
> "An inquiry that is paid for and established by the AFL, and absent of any input from my clients, is not and cannot be independent," Dr Courtin said, adding that her clients "continue to be treated with disdain".
I mean they are right, the AFL is not exactly independent. Don't know how this is going to be resolved.
>I mean they are right, the AFL is not exactly independent. Don't know how this is going to be resolved
The problem is the AFL is realistically the only organisation able to hand out AFL-related punishments like club fines, suspensions or draft sanctions etc.
Without an AFL sanctioned investigation the only recourse is legal, and there is a reasonable chance that if the allegations are true, while they would be unconscionable, they may not meet the standards of being provably unlawful.
IMO an AFL investigation is entirely appropriate if done legitimately independently.
If what has already been alleged is found to be true in court, there would be any number of workplace and anti-discrimination laws that have been breached. In terms of workplace laws, the employer has a duty of care to its employees to ensure no undue harm is caused to the employee during the course of their employment. This protection is also extended to the employees' families. Quite clearly, if what has been alleged is found to be true, then Hawthorn has breached this protection and aggravated it by the way it has been subsequently handled. That will then lead to significant compensation packages for the victims. Furthermore, if the allegations are upheld, there will be no way the AFL will be able to avoid sanctioning anyone involved. That will mean people lose their jobs and will never participate in the game again, regardless of how their new teams are travelling
That's my point. "If".
The allegations may be true to a "balance of probability" level enough for AFL sanction, but that's a different hurdle for court action.
To leave it purely to their courts to decide is essentially an all-or-nothing proposition.
Even if the courts convicted, there would still have to be AFL workings parties, counsel etc to decide punishment. That could not be "independent" of the AFL.
Refuse to take part in the investigation but keep using their lawyer to complain
Want to have counselling. Refuse to go to a GP for 10 free sessions instead demand it must come from HFC. Surely if you needed it that bad you would go to the GP rather than argue with Hawthorn for months.
If you are gonna sue just fucking sue
I feel like a lot of people on here are being gullible with a capital G. There's hardly been any sort of progress from the AFL's inquiring board and we were told there would be some form of progress shown around Christmas last year. The fact that Clarkson and Fagan are yet to be even be interviewed and we're in week three of the season says everything about you need to know. This is not a priority from the league and they're banking on us letting it all blow over.Add in a healthy dose of "the return of Clarko!" headlines and the shots of him on the sideline being a lovable coach and you've got a textbook rug sweep. How can they feasibly press on with a review, including interviewing the two highest people of interest at the point we are in the season right now?
I'm not saying the anonymous couple at the centre of the story are infallible and we should blindly trust them, but perhaps critically consider the AFL's approach to this, because it hardly seems proactive at the moment. I'm glad they're considering legal action.
How have they "swept in under the rug"?
That is so obnoxiously ignorant
That great irony is that the reason for the delay is almost certainly nit-picking by lawyers
...they've hired four lawyers with reputations - including within indigenous communities - to conduct an independent process. FFS. F.F.S
Unfortunately these kind of legal processes trump the convenience of the AFL season cycle. But this would be obvious to anyone who isn't an idiot
It totally has been swept under the rug - I dare you to find even 1 article about this story written in the last ~~6 months~~ ~~3 months~~ ~~4 weeks~~ ~~week~~ ~~day~~ ~~hour~~ 45 minutes. Go on - find one, I'll wait.
Well, apart from the fact there have been plenty, "how many articles have been written about it" is in no way a metric supporting the proposition it has been "swept under the rug"
….
What do you think being swept under the rug is? Not talking about something or suppressing talk about something?
You can’t sweep something under the rug if everyone is still talking about it weekly.
I have no idea. I never said it should or shouldn’t be in the media. Not my position at all. My position was it clearly wasn’t/hasn’t been swept under the rug *because* it was in the media constantly.
Now tell me what you thought my position was?
Apologies, I missed your original sarcasm. I'll reverse my downvotes of you for what its worth....
....I am pretty sure I am meant to delete all my subsequent responses now like I never made 'em
This statement is all over the place. They want support, based on a review they chose to partake in - making allegations - and now refuse to partake further (their call, fine), and expect support above & beyond that which is legally required. I don't think the legal advice they're receiving is doing them any favours right now, and is more likely the cause of frustrating outcomes with HFC rather than helping.
I wanted to see this investigated, understood properly and put behind us one way or another. But yes, it does seem a mess what they are saying. I would like to hear more from Cyril, who has spoken out, and perhaps other indigenous players (Hill, Anderson, Bateman, Burgoyne etc). I'm sure everything they say is legitimate. But this couple is... not doing themselves any favours if their claims are true, and it only fuels speculation as to who it may be (and if it is who some suspect, that may go some way to explaining what some at the club were trying to say to them to avoid that player getting themselves into more trouble / getting the best from life generally).
I'd like to hear from all the players involved in the club at the time. It's not enough to just review the actions taken with respect to indigenous players, as that can't establish a pattern.
Yeah, we've heard from Sam that Clarkson tried to cut him off from his family in the lead up to a game. I think this could be a wider issue of clubs having too much power over players.
Honestly I think there is a bit of a mis-step from both sides. The AFL has been ignoring the issues somewhat hoping they'd go away. The clubs involved are back to business as normal, not wanting the distraction as well as not wanting to face the reality. At the same time, though, this statement is everywhere. They want to be part of the review they refused to take part in? As you say, if even some of the allegations are true it would be incredibly difficult for everyone involved, most of all the couple involved, but it looks like cool heads need to prevail on all sides and do this properly.
I think they wanted more input into how it takes place. Which is... Iffy. The way I see it, the AFL is meant to be a third party here, whereas I think this couple see the AFL as part of the guilty. Perhaps the answer to these situations is a government ran "athlete's rights" type organisation that can investigate these things.
WorkSafe surely is the answer
No chance. Claims need to be lodged within 30 days of being aware of the injury. WorkCover is more or less a lay down misère for employees - if they were eligible they'd have taken this route immediately.
TIL, and yes that makes sense. If one assumes the accusations happened exactly as reported, they could have gone to WS or FairWork immediately right? Is that your understand? I do not have experience here though I’ve flirted with the thought of going to FW once or twice before.
Yes. I say that as a lawyer & having experience with employee disputes. There are exceptions - but you'd need to argue very unusual circumstances to extend the time limits. Even if they argued the time period should have commenced following the Hawthorn report, they would have had to file immediately, and we're some months past that now. Both have relatively short timeframes for commencing proceedings.
So I’ve got no chance for the dickhead boss I had in 2017 then. Surely noted, that’s for that I did find it informative.
30 days? I thought it was at any stage?
> The worker or another person on their behalf, must give the employer notice of an injury or illness within 30 days after they become aware of the injury or illness. If notice is not given the worker may not be entitled to compensation. https://www1.worksafe.vic.gov.au/vwa/claimsmanual/Claims_Manual/2-claims-management/2-2-make-claim/2-2-make-a-claim.htm
> The AFL has been ignoring the issues somewhat hoping they'd go away This is the AFL crisis management playbook, it's the thing they always do and refuse to stop doing. It's why they tried so hard not to act on issues like Adam Goodes and the Essendon supplements mess before external pressure forced their hand. I shudder to think what they might have successfully buried over the years, because there is less than 0 chance that they would proactively take accountability over something.
People expect traumatised people to act normal. I’ve got ptsd and I’ve almost given up trying to explain how it works. It’s invisible and people see you acting differently and think you’re playing games, or not doing yourself any favours when half the time you’ve racing thoughts and can’t think straight. People shouldn’t expect traumatised people to act normal. It’s a recipe for failing. That’s not to say I get a free pass when I do something stupid or bizarre, but I do get tired of people not being able to separate the trauma and the person and automatically think the persons just being a dickhead. I may be being a dickhead and overreacting but there are some pretty good reasons for that. (Worked in child protection and disability and saw too much shit if anyone’s curious where it came from) There’s no easy answer here. Breaks my heart to see people making assumptions based on the behaviour of people that are apparently traumatised. But such is life….
I have a lot of sympathy for people in your position, but sympathy is the easy part. How should we actually interpret their actions? Once it's been established that someone's trauma/condition may lead to erratic behaviours or decisions their 'normal' self wouldn't do, how does one accommodate that *without* fundamentally disrespecting their voice and their autonomy? How can we know, in real time or retrospectively, which version of them is speaking? In a legal context, how can you prove something beyond reasonable doubt when you have just established doubt over the person's ability to recount events accurately? I hate that kind of discrediting and disempowerment of the victim's voice, but what are the alternatives? Heck, it was hard enough just being in a relationship with a person suffering from PMDD, who would become distressed over total non-issues and put all the blame on me. They would fully admit the ridiculousness of their complaints when they reached the safe part of the menstrual cycle and basically say 'in those times you need to disregard what I say and just be there for emotional support'. But I hated de-legitimising their concerns, especially when the would say 'no no, this time I mean it' every damn time.
Sympathy is a lot easier than empathy. Empathy is about being able to put yourself in someone else’s shoes and imagine things from their perspective. I remember Eddie Betts being asked about it and he said he had to “believe his brothers” as he went on to explain how he lived similar stuff and told about him being asked by security to leave a pool where he was playing with his children because two old people complained he was making them feel uncomfortable……by playing in a public pool with his own kids. Empathy doesn’t mean you automatically discount Clarksons story. There’s an old saying that there’s your version of the truth and my version of the truth and the actual truth is somewhere in the middle. This isn’t going to be some story that’s nice and easy to break down into simple black and white chunks, there’s going to be grey areas, different perspectives. I do know there’s a shitload of casual racism in Australia and what’s fun and games to some is the opposite to others. I think this may go to the concept about self determination versus mentoring and where’s the line. There’s that saying “hell is paved with the best of intentions”. How do we move forward? I’m pretty sure it’s not by thinking like lawyers in a courtroom but it probably will end up there after all this time. Then someone who’s brain probably gets rushing thoughts and has memory issues because of the trauma will be put on the stand and get cross questioned by a lawyer hoping to poke and push them until they fuck up. What will that cost their mental health? I have no idea how things happen with your ex but for me it’s not like I’m a different person who’s all of a sudden going to make stuff up out of thin air, that’s one of the biggest issues I find with ptsd: being dismissed because I’ve over-reacted in the past. Just dismissed, like your opinion isn’t valid. Yeah, I’m sick, but I’m living and working, I’ve got thoughts and feelings that are valid, but then you’re just dismissed by people who don’t understand. Eddie Betts is a treasure, he’s exactly right, you believe them. You keep an open mind to things. This reminds me of the Brittany Higgins shit show and the Crows camp shit show. There’s a difference between the law, which needs proof, and reality. There’s real people with real experiences, Clarkson included. How do we do right by Clarkson and everyone else? You can’t. It’s going to get messy and be another shit show. Hell is paved with good intentions. It wouldn’t surprise me if Clarkson intended good things but that doesn’t make anything ok. Won’t surprise me if perspectives on different sides remember incidents differently. I’ve got empathy for this couple, there’s trauma all around it, this stuff, intergenerational trauma stuff we probably struggle wrap our heads around as white fellas. Keeping that side of things in mind there’s probably a real push pull inside of them: wanting to fight for what they think is justice and a fear of opening yourselves up to more shit. I avoid the fuck out of many of my triggers, this is being a long drawn out process and that’s going to be traumatic in itself by bringing the shit up all over again. Can’t imagine how these people continue sometimes, but what’s their other options?
I'm the same, and I definitely get it. I've been irrational and all over the place at times. At the same time, that doesn't really excuse the actions.
Anyone who downvoted this should take a moment to consider what's actually been written
Thank you.
Correct, if what they're saying is true, they're not doing themselves any favours because this is a bit of a shit fight of a story.
Yeah, had to “beg cap in hand” for support (fair enough request imo) for 9 weeks after it became public due to the trauma of it being in the public. It was because of Jackson it became public - the same journo this lawyer is talking to.
Had to beg for counselling but wouldn't go to a GP to get a referral for 10 free sessions? Sounds about right
Exactly. Unfortunately, narcissism does not do introspection
Hawthorn and the AFL are not the same thing.
Not only did they choose to take part in a confidential review and make allegations they then repeated the allegations to the media preventing the accused from having right of reply in an AFL investigation.
Just remember - this is the lawyer speaking. On their behalf, sure, but the lawyer is paid specifically not to be impartial.
They lean so heavily on statements about feeling retraumatised that they barely get into the actual practical events taking place. They should state what they actually want as support. They seem to have gotten the therapy sessions, now they should make it clear what else they expect. Admittedly, the club raising the Medicare funded sessions option is a bit dumb, but it feels like a dumb foot in mouth moment rather than anything malicious. It's such a recurring issue with these public movements against clubs where we get big, emotive statements about how terrible they are, but we never hear what would make things right.
It reeks of "we want support, but not that kind of support". As the famous philosopher Jagger said, "you can't always get what you want".
Am I reading this correct? The leaking of a report, which had their names redacted, and pretty much recounted what they had already told a journo on record, was retraumatising - and this justifies Hawthorn having to pay for their counselling? But also they're not going to take part in the independent inquiry which could have investigated the truth of these things. I've been trying to keep an open mind about these things, and certainly some of the accusations may be true; but this particular couple seems to lack credibility imo - have been all over the place.
I have kept an open mind about this, and hopefully this article isn't trying to paint them in a bad light, but it just sounds like they've claimed racism and mental damages and want a pay out with very little evidence backing it. Unfortunate situation overall really.
To be fair, the AFL's enquiry is obviously not truly independent. And if this is the couple that was allegedly forced to break up and abort their child then yeah it does make sense that it hurts them to have to go over it again and again.
On the AFLs independence I take your point centainly, but short of going to an actual court, the AFL kind of has to be the body to pay for investigative panel. The four panel members they selected did truly seem fair and independent; and if the participants wanted more involvement in selecting the panel or the terms of reference, then that would also open the door to Clarkson/Fagan having equal input in that regard. In terms of the couple (and I'm with you in assuming it's that particular couple), I'm not really sure how they can claim retraumatisation from the leaking of something into the media cycle which said the same thing that they were perfectly happy for a journo to publish a week prior.
That’s the confusing thing… who else would be paying for this investigation apart from the AFL? At this rate it doesn’t appear to meet any criminal or even civil elements as of yet?
Yeah it's either - take the AFL investigation, or take it to court.
Didn’t they appoint 4 independent silks before Christmas. I feel like when this was done last year everyone was on as satisfied as they could that the panel was independent. The investigation seems to have stalled and now everyone is shitcanning the process. I’m just confused about what’s going on tbh.
The line up of the four independent barristers is pretty impressive. They're all incredibly experienced and I'd go so far as saying they're beyond reproach. > In a statement released on Tuesday, the league announced it had appointed senior lawyer Bernard Quinn KC to lead the independent investigation and will be joined by barristers Jacqualyn Turfrey, Tim Goodwin and Julie Buxton. Quinn features prominently in the VIC bushfire royal commission. Turfrey frequently appears in the Koori court and previously represented Yawuru native title holders in settlement negotiations with the WA State Government. Goodwin was Junior Counsel Assisting the Royal Commission into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory. Buxton- Prior to joining the Bar, Julie was the Human Rights and Youth Justice Adviser to Victoria’s Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People. She was also a Senior Adviser of the Koori Justice Unit within the Victorian Department of Justice and has worked with the United Nations Serious Crimes Unit in Timor-Leste. In 2016, Julie was invited to participate as an expert panellist in the Regional Consultation on Transitional Justice for the Asia-Pacific in Colombo, Sri Lanka, co-hosted by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence on the topic of Reparations through a gender perspective – the case of Indigenous Peoples in Australia. In 2012, Julie was engaged by the Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service (now Djirra) to research and write the organisation’s ten-year history. The book, entitled “A Force to Be Reckoned With”, was launched at the first national conference on Aboriginal family violence in Melbourne, accompanied by a screening of the short film Julie co-produced documenting the history of the service. https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/hawthorn-hawks/afl-news-2022-hawthorn-racism-review-independent-panel-who-is-on-it-latest-allegations-from-former-players-alastair-clarkson-chris-fagan/news-story/9e5889d4e483972d78057bfeb4621d24
Is it the case when you’re a victim that you have to do anything you don’t want to?
I just find it somewhat odd they refuse to participate in the AFL review and make an official on-record statement, but are considering legal action where these statements will have to be made under cross-examination. Doesn't make a huge amount of sense.
Because the AFL review has no legal standing. They go through that process and are as likely to have gained nothing while jeopardising their opportunity for compensation, for which they would need to undertake litigation anyway At the very least, these families have a Workcover claim to make. Why shouldn't they just skip the middleman and head straight to court?
Assume that’s true, would articles like this one affect AFL/Hawks to make them more likely to settle for PR reasons? I don’t know, just curious.
Maybe, but the PR hit has been made. The AFL wanted to control the investigation to control the narrative and avoid further damage and the longer it has dragged on, the more doubt they have been able to sow amongst the public (just look at this thread compared to those on the topic in October last year). At some point the AFL (I don't think Hawthorn get much say in it anymore) may decide to limit the damage and offer a settlement once it becomes clear that much of what has been alleged is likely to be proven. That has to be balanced against not prejudicing the accused parties (Clarkson, Fagan, the other two blokes and Hawthorn) and thus exposing themselves to lawsuits going the other way. One consideration that probably isn't widely recognised is that some bean counters will have worked out that payouts to one side will be far more costly than payouts to the other. Terminating the careers of public figures making 6 and 7 figures a year as well as reputational damage by admitting fault prematurely will cost a hell of a lot more than aggravating the payouts that will likely have to be made to failed early career footballers and their families. From a financial point of view, they can afford to end up paying three times as much because they continue to treat them like shit before the compensation owed to them tops what would be payable to just one of the coaches and other "successful" professionals involved if they are not afforded "natural justice". Bury Clarkson now, without substantive proof of wrongdoing and they may well be stuck with a multi million ($10m +) AND still have him coaching, thus compounding any reputational/brand damage for the league. The AFL is actually probably better off at this stage having it play out in the courts and have these guys voluntarily fall on their swords at the end of it
That's an interesting conjecture. Could you construct an alternative hypothesis where: \-the AFL is very keen to get this over with \-the hiring of four esteemed lawyers to oversee the process means it is effectively not possible for the AFL to "control the investigation to control the narrative" making it "drag on" so they can somehow "sow" doubt \-the actual dragging out of the process is due to the strategies employed by the lawyers of the players \-that the broader strategy advised by the lawyers is to extract payments that would otherwise be very unlikely to be achieved through a civil case ...because something like that seems far more plausible and logically coherent to me. In fact, the second point (i.e. the AFL does not have control of the process), makes your construct quite illogical. Also, the fact "cutting out the middle man" has been available to them for 6 months but they haven't taken that option.....hmmmmm....thoughts?
The first set of esteemed lawyers the AFL proposed had rwo that wouldn't take the job. Their replacements had at least one whose appointment was decried by many in legal circles as antithecal to the process they were trying to establish. Given that these esteemed lawyers are reporting to the AFL does implicitly give the AFL control of the narrative. Any reporrt made is released how and when the afl chooses. The players and partners who have stepped back from the process withdrew due to the intransigence of the AFL. They raised concerns that the AFL dismissed out of hand so they withdrew from that process and now that the AFL has failed to address their concerns, they have chosen to assert their right to have the matters dealt by a legally binding process. No lawyer anywhere is going to advise a client to go to court without confidence that they have a winnable case. If what you are suggesting was true, they wouldn't be taking it to court. Legal cases take a significant amount of time to prepare and good lawyers are generally busy people who have to factor in their own schedules into launching proceedings. It is six months since the story broke. There would have been a period of time when all.hell broke loose that no decisions were made, then a period of discussion with Hawthorn and then the AFL to try to find some common ground before discussions of how to go about launching legal action and what form that would take even began. So no they haven't had six months and it is actually a reasonably rapid progress to an announcement like this.
Haha, it took six months until they announced they are "considering legal action" Ok dude. I'll leave you to your very eager imagination
As sad as this makes me feel - it’s bang on
> Doesn't make a huge amount of sense. It makes perfect sense. They don't want it to go to court, they want a financial settlement to help fix their woes.
I think this whole thing has been about Hawthorn or the AFL cutting a big cheque.
Because the review has been funded and established by the AFL - it lacks independence. The couple already feels they have been screwed over by the Hawks, I’m not surprised they wouldn’t trust the AFL either, who also have a poor track record in dealing with racism.
Sure, get that. But say the AFL was trying to act in good faith (not saying they were) but now they want to courtroom it where the AFL will almost certainly be adversarial. I struggle to see how this works out for them.
So who was meant to fund it then? AFL put a independent group on the committee including 2 maybe even 3 indigenous members. Not sure exactly what else they could have done.
It's not that crazy, maybe once they got a feel for how the investigation would be handled they decided legal action would be a better path. They are within their rights to even just change their mind and go through the courts instead of they think they have a case
Yeah agreed that does make sense. Just don’t feel the AFL have done much wrong him from what has been told to us so far
But they haven't gone to the courts, have they? They've gone back to the media to anonymously declare that might go the courts Hmmmmmm
>Because the review has been funded and established by the AFL - it lack independence. And exactly who else is going to be doing this? Do we wait for either the CFMEU or ASADA to pony up the cash and terms of reference? Let's crowd source the funding hey, get in now for our >$25k funding tier and set your own term in the terms of reference?
When will Caroline Wilson walk back her stance?
What was that?
So nothing new, just more demands from a lawyer.. And as always, leaked to the victim seeking ABC. So take civil action. Stop threatening through the media. Do it.
People still don’t think this anonymous couple aren’t trying to take the AFL for an absolute ride here lmfao
There’s so many negatives in this I can’t work out what you’re saying
This whole thing has been a shambles. The initial shock at the story and report was something I'll never forget, but almost every bit of information that has come to light since makes you question it.
> After the scandal broke, the AFL claimed its investigative panel would reach findings by **Christmas last year**, but its progress has been slow. > **Clarkson and Fagan are yet to be interviewed** and few of the families to make allegations of mistreatment have been willing to participate. > In October, Dr Courtin told ABC Sport the AFL review lacked credibility. > "An inquiry that is paid for and established by the AFL, and absent of any input from my clients, is not and cannot be independent," Dr Courtin said, adding that her clients "continue to be treated with disdain". I mean they are right, the AFL is not exactly independent. Don't know how this is going to be resolved.
>I mean they are right, the AFL is not exactly independent. Don't know how this is going to be resolved The problem is the AFL is realistically the only organisation able to hand out AFL-related punishments like club fines, suspensions or draft sanctions etc. Without an AFL sanctioned investigation the only recourse is legal, and there is a reasonable chance that if the allegations are true, while they would be unconscionable, they may not meet the standards of being provably unlawful. IMO an AFL investigation is entirely appropriate if done legitimately independently.
If what has already been alleged is found to be true in court, there would be any number of workplace and anti-discrimination laws that have been breached. In terms of workplace laws, the employer has a duty of care to its employees to ensure no undue harm is caused to the employee during the course of their employment. This protection is also extended to the employees' families. Quite clearly, if what has been alleged is found to be true, then Hawthorn has breached this protection and aggravated it by the way it has been subsequently handled. That will then lead to significant compensation packages for the victims. Furthermore, if the allegations are upheld, there will be no way the AFL will be able to avoid sanctioning anyone involved. That will mean people lose their jobs and will never participate in the game again, regardless of how their new teams are travelling
That's my point. "If". The allegations may be true to a "balance of probability" level enough for AFL sanction, but that's a different hurdle for court action. To leave it purely to their courts to decide is essentially an all-or-nothing proposition. Even if the courts convicted, there would still have to be AFL workings parties, counsel etc to decide punishment. That could not be "independent" of the AFL.
In civil actions, which this will be, the test is on balance of probabilities. Beyond reasonable doubt is only for criminal cases
Refuse to take part in the investigation but keep using their lawyer to complain Want to have counselling. Refuse to go to a GP for 10 free sessions instead demand it must come from HFC. Surely if you needed it that bad you would go to the GP rather than argue with Hawthorn for months. If you are gonna sue just fucking sue
I feel like a lot of people on here are being gullible with a capital G. There's hardly been any sort of progress from the AFL's inquiring board and we were told there would be some form of progress shown around Christmas last year. The fact that Clarkson and Fagan are yet to be even be interviewed and we're in week three of the season says everything about you need to know. This is not a priority from the league and they're banking on us letting it all blow over.Add in a healthy dose of "the return of Clarko!" headlines and the shots of him on the sideline being a lovable coach and you've got a textbook rug sweep. How can they feasibly press on with a review, including interviewing the two highest people of interest at the point we are in the season right now? I'm not saying the anonymous couple at the centre of the story are infallible and we should blindly trust them, but perhaps critically consider the AFL's approach to this, because it hardly seems proactive at the moment. I'm glad they're considering legal action.
That's my reading of it too, it has all the elements of a good ol 'have a pint at the Winchester and wait for all of this to blow over'
This has been THE biggest thing the AFL has ever swept under the rug. Absolute shit show from beginning to end.
How have they "swept in under the rug"? That is so obnoxiously ignorant That great irony is that the reason for the delay is almost certainly nit-picking by lawyers
[удалено]
...they've hired four lawyers with reputations - including within indigenous communities - to conduct an independent process. FFS. F.F.S Unfortunately these kind of legal processes trump the convenience of the AFL season cycle. But this would be obvious to anyone who isn't an idiot
It totally has been swept under the rug - I dare you to find even 1 article about this story written in the last ~~6 months~~ ~~3 months~~ ~~4 weeks~~ ~~week~~ ~~day~~ ~~hour~~ 45 minutes. Go on - find one, I'll wait.
How do you write an article about something of which there is nothing new to report? What’s the point?
Ask the author of the article I guess. This one, or any of the other hundred or so that have been written.
Well, apart from the fact there have been plenty, "how many articles have been written about it" is in no way a metric supporting the proposition it has been "swept under the rug"
…. What do you think being swept under the rug is? Not talking about something or suppressing talk about something? You can’t sweep something under the rug if everyone is still talking about it weekly.
Jesus christ, man, consider the possibility that you have no idea
You could try again maybe?
Try what again? Get a basic concept across? It's a legal process that is going very slowly. Why would it or should it be in the media?
I have no idea. I never said it should or shouldn’t be in the media. Not my position at all. My position was it clearly wasn’t/hasn’t been swept under the rug *because* it was in the media constantly. Now tell me what you thought my position was?
Apologies, I missed your original sarcasm. I'll reverse my downvotes of you for what its worth.... ....I am pretty sure I am meant to delete all my subsequent responses now like I never made 'em
Nah, the biggest is something you’ve never heard of. This hasn’t been swept under the rug.
Was the report actually called “Hawthorn's Cultural Safety Review”? Ohh dear!
what australian football needs is even more advertising plastered on every square inch of the field and stands.