Hawthorn racism review

[Grantysghost]

Re: Hawthorn racism review

Just have to let the process play out.

In terms of the accused's responses, it's pretty cookie cutter and what you'd expect.
Emphatic denials.

[Bornadog]

Re: Hawthorn racism review

Do you think this will end up in the courts?

It is always possible. We will know once the review takes place and will depend on the outcome

[Rocco Jones]

Re: Hawthorn racism review

Do you think this will end up in the courts?

I think it depends on a few things.

If the findings from the external review deem they were guilty and the evidence isn't extremely clear, as in multiple witnesses, documents et al and they think they are a chance to win whatever version of appeal/defamation/case they take to court, I think they definitely will. If they actually did it and are denying it, they will probably be okay with continuing to lie/being in denial as far as they can go (unless it gets too taxing I guess).

If they didn't do it, it's mostly fabricated (collusion between different parties, I know I don't believe this), they should keep fighting as much as they can.

If the external review say they are innocent and they know a defamation case can bring up issues (i.e. AFL clearing them in a Talia brothers way), I think they will leave well enough alone and not risk a defamation case.

[jeemak]

Re: Hawthorn racism review

For what it's worth, I wrote about the devastating allegations at Hawthorn as part of a broader assessment of Gillon McLachlan's tenure as CEO.

Great read mate, awesome stuff.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Hawthorn racism review

I think it depends on a few things.

If the findings from the external review deem they were guilty and the evidence isn't extremely clear, as in multiple witnesses, documents et al and they think they are a chance to win whatever version of appeal/defamation/case they take to court, I think they definitely will. If they actually did it and are denying it, they will probably be okay with continuing to lie/being in denial as far as they can go (unless it gets too taxing I guess).

If they didn't do it, it's mostly fabricated (collusion between different parties, I know I don't believe this), they should keep fighting as much as they can.

If the external review say they are innocent and they know a defamation case can bring up issues (i.e. AFL clearing them in a Talia brothers way), I think they will leave well enough alone and not risk a defamation case.

I’m not sure there’s a defamation case here. Especially if Fagan & Clarkson keep their jobs and there’s no financial damage on top of alleged reputations damage.

I’ve been following the Ben Roberts-Smith case closely, and there’s more of a case there, and it’s a close run thing, and it’s about war crimes and being a murderer (which is another sphere altogether). The ABC will use ‘truth’ as a defence to the publication. Factually they’ve reported an investigation was done. True. They’ve interviewed multiple sources and presumably vetted the evidence in deciding to report it with a reasonable belief what they’ve been told is ‘true’. Importantly, I read they offered both men (plus the development fella) the opportunity to respond to questions and the allegations BEFORE the report was published. It says they did not respond.

I imagine a court would rightfully point to the last part. If Fagan & Clarkson wanted the record corrected, or wanted to deny the allegations, or wanted to produce proof that the story was materially ‘untrue’, or wanted to commence a ‘concerns notice’ seeking them to stop the story, or wanted to seek an injunction by a court to temporarily halt the story - then the ABC is saying they have them that chance to take any of those actions and they didn’t take it. If the ABC gave them a reasonable time to respond (which is not exactly clear) then they have to get around that as well as proving that ‘truth’ can’t be used a defence. Not an easy or cheap thing to do from where I sit.

I think it’s simple. If the journo, management and lawyers from the ABC did their jobs right they should be fine to defend a potential defamation claim, whether or not a subsequent investigation determines anything different. As a tax payer, and someone interested in fairness, I hope the ABC dotted their i’s and crossed their t’s. I think we will see soon enough though, and it’s pretty simple, they’ve got the right to claim they’ve been potentially defamed. The ABC has the right to reveal to a court why they aren’t on the hook for it. The media circus will be next level if that happens. Will that be worse than just the story out there and do the coaches want to pump in millions in lawyers fees on a tight run thing? Lots of water under the bridge irrespective of what the AFEL find/claim to have found.

[Rocco Jones]

Re: Hawthorn racism review

I’m not sure there’s a defamation case here. Especially if Fagan & Clarkson keep their jobs and there’s no financial damage on top of alleged reputations damage.

I’ve been following the Ben Roberts-Smith case closely, and there’s more of a case there, and it’s a close run thing, and it’s about war crimes and being a murderer (which is another sphere altogether). The ABC will use ‘truth’ as a defence to the publication. Factually they’ve reported an investigation was done. True. They’ve interviewed multiple sources and presumably vetted the evidence in deciding to report it with a reasonable belief what they’ve been told is ‘true’. Importantly, I read they offered both men (plus the development fella) the opportunity to respond to questions and the allegations BEFORE the report was published. It says they did not respond.

I imagine a court would rightfully point to the last part. If Fagan & Clarkson wanted the record corrected, or wanted to deny the allegations, or wanted to produce proof that the story was materially ‘untrue’, or wanted to commence a ‘concerns notice’ seeking them to stop the story, or wanted to seek an injunction by a court to temporarily halt the story - then the ABC is saying they have them that chance to take any of those actions and they didn’t take it. If the ABC gave them a reasonable time to respond (which is not exactly clear) then they have to get around that as well as proving that ‘truth’ can’t be used a defence. Not an easy or cheap thing to do from where I sit.

I think it’s simple. If the journo, management and lawyers from the ABC did their jobs right they should be fine to defend a potential defamation claim, whether or not a subsequent investigation determines anything different. As a tax payer, and someone interested in fairness, I hope the ABC dotted their i’s and crossed their t’s. I think we will see soon enough though, and it’s pretty simple, they’ve got the right to claim they’ve been potentially defamed. The ABC has the right to reveal to a court why they aren’t on the hook for it. The media circus will be next level if that happens. Will that be worse than just the story out there and do the coaches want to pump in millions in lawyers fees on a tight run thing? Lots of water under the bridge irrespective of what the AFEL find/claim to have found.

Excellent post BT.

[Topdog]

Re: Hawthorn racism review

Journo apparently sent an email asking them to respond within 24 hours and then left a voicemail asking if they wanted more time

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Hawthorn racism review

Journo apparently sent an email asking them to respond within 24 hours and then left a voicemail asking if they wanted more time

Seems pretty reasonable to me. If even for them to ask for another 24 hours or take any actions open to them.

[Stevo]

Re: Hawthorn racism review

Journo apparently sent an email asking them to respond within 24 hours and then left a voicemail asking if they wanted more time

You can understand that the optics aren't great as this all came though just before the GF but my word it needed to come out. The journo has done more than the right thing by Hawthorn and the AFL.

[Bornadog]

Re: Hawthorn racism review

From The Age

A former Hawthorn assistant coach gave evidence to the club’s cultural review, which sources said supported parts of the Indigenous players’ testimony about their alleged mistreatment.

Sources familiar with the review, who were not authorised to comment publicly, confirmed to The Age the involvement of the former assistant coach, who worked under Alastair Clarkson at the Hawks, as the four Indigenous families at the centre of the racism scandal engaged renowned troubleshooting lawyer Leon Zwier to represent them.

The sources said the former assistant coach supported aspects of the families’ accounts.

The Age cannot confirm which particular incidents were backed up, and is not suggesting the assistant coach’s involvement proves any of the allegations.

[Grantysghost]

Re: Hawthorn racism review

From The Age

Bevo

[Stevo]

Re: Hawthorn racism review

Bevo

Statement or speculation?
That would be an intense story.

[Grantysghost]

Re: Hawthorn racism review

Statement or speculation?
That would be an intense story.

Speculation.

[Bornadog]

Re: Hawthorn racism review

Bevo

You don't know that. Could be a number of assistants.

2013

Assistant coaches

• Leon Cameron (Forward)
• Adam Yze (Forward)
• Brendon Bolton (Midfield)
• Adam Simpson (Midfield)
• Luke Beveridge (Defence)
• Damian Monkhorst (Ruck)

2014

Assistant coaches

• Luke Beveridge.
• Brendon Bolton.
• Cameron Bruce.
• Brett Ratten.
• Damian Monkhorst (Ruck)
• Damian Carroll (Football Academy Development Coordinator)
• Adem Yze (Development)
• Brent Guerra (Part-time Development coach)

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Hawthorn racism review

So the next phase begins.

Fagan & Clarkson push back vigorously. Media gets given more evidence to push back in kind…