Hawthorn racism review

[i'm-uninformed2]

Here’s their statement.

This fits my instincts for what happened with the AFL process.

In typical fashion, they made it an overtly legalistic process, designed to be a schemozzle, where no one could agree to anything and prevent any findings being made. And in doing so they achieved the AFL’s primary goal - immune themselves from risk.

There will be Hawks fans tempted to dismiss these people as nobody rookies. But Cyril has attached his name to it, so good luck with that.


Cyril Rioli and group of former Hawks issue open letter regarding Hawthorn racism investigation

[Velour&Ruffles]

You do understand the difference between not replying to an ABC journalist after the fact for the purposes of his news report, and not being provided with the opportunity to be interviewed as part of the process in the first place?

This +many.

Having worked in this domain for a very long time, I can tell you for a fact that responding to what a journalist chooses to tell you after the event and responding to proper allegations as part of an investigation are absolutely not the same thing. Anyone who equates those two things demonstrates a profound ignorance of both law and media.

[Velour&Ruffles]

Here’s their statement.

This fits my instincts for what happened with the AFL process.

In typical fashion, they made it an overtly legalistic process, designed to be a schemozzle, where no one could agree to anything and prevent any findings being made. And in doing so they achieved the AFL’s primary goal - immune themselves from risk.

There will be Hawks fans tempted to dismiss these people as nobody rookies. But Cyril has attached his name to it, so good luck with that.


Cyril Rioli and group of former Hawks issue open letter regarding Hawthorn racism investigation

Yep. And there's the problem. There's this thing called the confirmation bias.

[stevoswan]

Yep. And there's the problem. There's this thing called the confirmation bias.

....and it works both ways. From what angle are you viewing all this? I'm curious.

[stevoswan]

As much as the AFL wanted to sweep this under the carpet and make it go away.....it isn't and won't. This evenings open letter is damning.

They have again shot themselves in the foot....they are really good at doing that. They are an arrogant but ultimately very incompetent (white) boys club, that's for sure.

[wolftone57]

This +many.

Having worked in this domain for a very long time, I can tell you for a fact that responding to what a journalist chooses to tell you after the event and responding to proper allegations as part of an investigation are absolutely not the same thing. Anyone who equates those two things demonstrates a profound ignorance of both law and media.

All parties were given the opportunity to participate in proceedings. The Hawthorn Review did not expect to be a party to allegations but they were.? When this happened the investigation was basically halted as they were uncertain how to proceed. Plus they had no power to actually investigate such allegations.

So, basically this report was sent to the AFL, who have denied any knowledge but of course we know that is not true because of emails between the AFL & Hawthorn.

Sent from my JAT-L29 using Tapatalk

[wolftone57]

As much as the AFL wanted to sweep this under the carpet and make it go away.....it isn't and won't. This evenings open letter is damning.

They have again shot themselves in the foot....they are really good at doing that. They are an arrogant but ultimately very incompetent (white) boys club, that's for sure.

I agree totally

Sent from my JAT-L29 using Tapatalk

[i'm-uninformed2]

Yep. And there's the problem. There's this thing called the confirmation bias.

Hang about.

My point was about the AFL and its processes. My posts on here have actually been fairly careful about avoiding sweeping statements about what did or didn’t happen regarding the particular allegations. (For example, I think Clarko is a bit of a white line lunatic, but I’m not so sure that’s the case with Fagan - so where does that leave me).

I also agree with your basic point - the three accused deserve a fair forum and opportunity to state their case.

My view however is the AFL hasn’t done that, because as always, the AFL’s sole intent is to mitigate itself against legal risk.

And forgive my suspicions when this is the administration led by Gil, who famously said he didn’t know what tanking was, Melbourne wasn’t guilty of it, then issued a batch of sanctions on them anyway.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Perhaps Burt's conscience is asserting itself? Regardless of motivation, his revelation does not put the Hawks in a good light.

[BRS328]

Excellent post I’m-informed.

Add to the tanking issue the two year trading ban and removal of Cola, when the Swans when they had done absolutely nothing wrong in the recruitment of Buddy Franklin.

It was simply a vindictive move to appease the AFL chairman (Fitzpatrick), and the Victorian clubs who could all see ann easy way to target players in the Northern states. It was a crazy decision, and may have done irreparable damage to the development of the game, particularly in NSW.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

In management terms it's referred to as outcomes focus - my 2c is that it's just a form of corruption. It's certainly a warning sign of a toxic organisational culture.