The allegations of racism and potential abuse of young footballers at the Hawthorn Football Club are harrowing and traumatic to read. But yet again, the AFL has managed a complete governance failure with regard to the investigation process.
It is critical we separate the horrific allegations from the process itself, something that the media, in a typical rush to judgment and clicks, has again failed to do.
Earlier this year, popular Hawthorn premiership champion Cyril Rioli and his wife, Shannyn, levelled separate allegations against the club, including that “Hawthorn president Jeff Kennett commented on the designer ripped jeans of Rioli’s wife Shannyn Ah Sam-Rioli, offering loose change to help sew them up — comments Kennett claims was a joke”.
The Rioli allegations led Hawthorn to commission an investigative report into other instances of racism. This was the genesis for the current report, prepared by former Richmond footballer Phil Egan.
Egan was in many ways the ideal person to prepare the report: an Indigenous former footballer who runs a small consultancy called Binmada, which “provides research, analysis and strategic planning to help leaders make informed decisions about these and other issues facing their organisations and communities”, according to its website. Egan has previously worked with the AFL, as well as with the federal government and the Department of Human Services.
The important aspect to note is Egan is a consultant, not a lawyer, nor a judge, nor, it appears, an investigator. Egan’s role was to prepare a report into the allegations, a task he appears to have done well. The next step in the process is for experienced, preferably legally trained investigators to properly determine the veracity of the claims. This process would involve obtaining statements from the alleged perpetrators, as well as third parties who may have witnessed the events.
This will, but has not yet, occurred. As former Hawthorn coach Alastair Clarkson said on Wednesday: “I was not interviewed by the authors of the report commissioned by the club, and nor have I been provided with a copy of the report … I was not afforded any due process and I refute any allegation of wrongdoing or misconduct.”
While Clarkson’s comments are correct, the issue here isn’t the Egan report itself — its task was to gather the allegations. The problem is that the serious allegations raised by Egan have been leaked in forensic detail to Russell Jackson at the ABC. Jackson’s 4500-word article appeared to be close to a verbatim reporting of the Egan report.
Unsurprisingly, given the nature of the allegations and high profiles of the alleged perpetrators, there has been a rush to judgment. Crikey was certainly no exception.
While the allegations are traumatic and deeply concerning, they are also just that: allegations. Moreover, the allegations themselves relate to incidents that occurred several years ago and the victims appear to have endured significant mental anguish over that period. That doesn’t in any way mean they shouldn’t be believed (there are very legitimate reasons why the allegations have not been made sooner), but they are all factors that are considered by an independent, preferably legally trained investigator.
The concern here is that the horrific allegations have been made public at this time — before they have been properly investigated (the situation is similarly concerning to the infamous “darkest day in sport” press conference).
For the sake of both the victims and the perpetrators, the allegations should have remained completely confidential until they were properly investigated. At this stage, the Hawthorn staff at the centre of the claims don’t know the full allegations, nor who made the allegations. Shaun Burgoyne, maybe the most decorated Indigenous player ever, who was at Hawthorn during the entire period in question, said, “I had no knowledge of those instances ever happening. I was never involved. I was never asked. This is the first I’ve heard of it being involved in this process”.
It is especially concerning that the allegations appear to have been potentially released to the ABC by Egan himself (it is difficult to see how the ABC could have otherwise been so well informed). Egan also told The Age that “the report noted a range of recommendations for the club to address in relation to creating a culturally safe environment for all … these include further and immediate investigation of the findings; reparation and compensation for the affected families if the allegations are validated; and policy and structural changes to ensure cultural safety is embedded within the club.”
The Age also reported that Egan “endured his own experiences with racism in the game, [and] said he felt privileged to have been tasked with the review because of its sensitive nature”.
The process is not only disastrous to Clarkson and his former assistant Chris Fagan — who, even if exonerated, are likely to face lifelong ramifications — but also to the alleged victims, who will now be forced to endure a lengthy, and unnecessarily public, exploration of such horrific alleged events.
These are all things worth noting though I am concerned that you have written
“It is especially concerning that the allegations appear to have been potentially released to the ABC by Egan himself “. It is reasonable to expect that a number of people would have seen the report given that it was released to the AFL at least a fortnight ago.
The AFL’s inability/unwillingness to deal with racism that has been brought to its attention over a very, very long period of time has left me with ABSOLUTELY NO confidence that it would have dealt appropriately with these allegations if the public wasn’t looking over its shoulder. Even the longstanding racist harassment of Adam Goodes could not motivate the AFL to act, and the entire nation was watching that happen in real time.
Senior coaches and similar club staff are part of the rich and powerful of the AFL and some have perpetrated, excused and hidden vicious racist acts for such a very long time. Many others have sat in silence watching their colleagues’ behaviour. Hopefully, the leak has tipped the balance away from the inhumane behaviour of the AFL power brokers to ordinary players and supporters who are people of decency and want an end to racism in football.
You’ve criticised the making of allegations without the alleged perpetrators having an opportunity to defend themselves, yet you are comfortable making your own implied allegations. Did you give Egan a chance to respond to this?
“It is especially concerning that the allegations appear to have been potentially released to the ABC by Egan himself “
how can you say the investigation was well done when Phil Egan told a tv interviewer he did not need to interview any non-indigenous participant.
Hawthorn asked him to talk to the First Nations’players (not all players) in response to a complaint by a First Nations’ player. The club defined the scope of the review and Egan did the job he was hired to do. Even if Egan considered that it should be broadened, he couldn’t do it without the club’s agreement.
That’s not quite the point. Egan’s job was to clarify the allegations. The allegations have not been investigated. So it’s very premature at this point to draw conclusions, make recommendations or apportion blame. Releasing the allegations without an investigation is not a good move.
Oh good, this clown again.
1) No irony at all, Adam, in objecting to allegations without contacting the accused party, then throwing allegations around about Egan leaking the report to the ABC?
2) Despite there being no evidence, and the AFL and Hawthorn confirming there was no leak, you make the supposition that the reports details “have been leaked” (not “may have” or “potentially have). It was confirmed by Gerard Whateley who, unlike you, is a highly respect football commentator and journalist, that The Age had been conducting interviews and research on this issue since April.
It is an ongoing embarrassment that Crikey, in the midst of campaigning for editorial independence, allows one of its own board members free licence to publish article after article which is poorly researched and never in his area of expertise.
‘As former Hawthorn coach Alastair Clarkson said on Wednesday: “I was not interviewed by the authors of the report commissioned by the club, and nor have I been provided with a copy of the report … I was not afforded any due process and I refute any allegation of wrongdoing or misconduct.”’
Pedantry alert. While Clarkson may claim to have refuted the allegations, he has only denied them. As usual, many reporters in the mainstream media failed to pick up on this distinction and reported that Clarkson has ‘refuted’ the allegations.
Fellow pedant here. It seems that many people now use refute to mean deny. The difference, as you imply, is vital.
If we can all agree on a definition, that is.
Typically garbage take in favour of the rich and powerful from Schwab. The ABC article was based on interviews with the families involved, as per the opening sentence of the fourth para: ‘According to the families of three players interviewed by ABC Sport, the incidents at the centre of the review allegedly took place during Clarkson’s time as head coach…’.
So Schwab’s argument is that journos shouldn’t report on public interest allegations disclosed to them, ie Me Too shouldn’t have even happened. If he thinks so little of journalism he should really resign from Private Media’s board. It’s embarrassing.