Player upset by comments in Gold Coast-Western Bulldogs match

[Max469]

Mark Stevens
From: Herald Sun
June 26, 2011 12:00AM



THE issue of vilification in football has again reared its head.
It is understood a player in the Gold Coast-Western Bulldogs match yesterday was upset by comments during play.

Although it is believed it may have been a player-to-player issue, unlike the fan abuse recently directed at Majak Daw and Lance Franklin, details are likely to remain confidential under the AFL's racial vilification policy.

Both clubs and the AFL are bound by secrecy if mediation takes place.

A Gold Coast spokesperson this morning said: "I can't comment."

Western Bulldogs officials could not be contacted, but are also bound by rules which keep such incidents in-house.

AFL spokesman Patrick Keane said only one point of contact at the league would know if mediation was required, and that person was bound by a strict confidentiality that mirrored the illicit drugs code.

[LostDoggy]

This should be moved to the AFL section

.

[chef]

This should be moved to the AFL section

.

Why it's about a Bulldogs player.

[ledge]

So much for in house the H/S knows about it.

[Happy Days]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/afl/gold-coast-suns-player-makes-racial-abuse-claim-against-western-bulldogs/story-e6frepex-1226082294029

Gold Coast Suns player makes racial abuse claim against Western Bulldogs
Andrew Hamilton and Greg Davis

A GOLD Coast Suns player has complained of being racially abused by a Western Bulldogs player in Saturday's clash at Metricon Stadium.
The Courier-Mail understands the complaint, backed by the Suns administration, has initiated an AFL vilification inquiry into what was said by the Bulldogs player.

League rules prohibit clubs from commenting on vilification matters and the AFL has thrown a tight veil of secrecy over the complaint after it reached official channels.

It is understood a Suns player, who The Courier-Mail is not in a position to name, involved in the match was upset by comments made during the game.

Neither the AFL or the clubs would confirm on Sunday night if the alleged vilification came from a player or a spectator, but it is understood the aggrieved player believes the taunt came from an opponent.

Suns chief executive Travis Auld was tight-lipped.

"I'm not in a position to make any comment on the issue,'' Auld said.

[LostDoggy]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/afl/gold-coast-suns-player-makes-racial-abuse-claim-against-western-bulldogs/story-e6frepex-1226082294029

Gold Coast Suns player makes racial abuse claim against Western Bulldogs
Andrew Hamilton and Greg Davis

A GOLD Coast Suns player has complained of being racially abused by a Western Bulldogs player in Saturday's clash at Metricon Stadium.


Well if it's a GC player, the logical (but not necessarily right) guess is Campbell Brown at 3 quarter time to Liam Jones

[Greystache]

Well if it's a GC player, the logical (but not necessarily right) guess is Campbell Brown at 3 quarter time to Liam Jones

The article is alledging that a Bulldog player made the comment to a Suns player.

[Drunken Bum]

Well if it's a GC player, the logical (but not necessarily right) guess is Campbell Brown at 3 quarter time to Liam Jones

Read it again, it was one of our players

[LostDoggy]

Ahh s**t. Really really disappointing if true.

[Dancin' Douggy]

Ahh s**t. Really really disappointing if true.

I agree. Very shabby. Especially because we've been pretty squeaky clean for a long time.

I can't believe it was a senior player, I mean we just don't have any track record there at all.

Maybe a youngster or a new recruit?

Very treacherous waters to navigate either way.

[Rocco Jones]

Guys, perhaps having a 'who was the racist?' guessing game isn't the best of ideas? Not meaning to have a go, just you know... not a great label to have relatively randomly thrown at you.

[GVGjr]

Guys, perhaps having a 'who was the racist?' guessing game isn't the best of ideas? Not meaning to have a go, just you know... not a great label to have relatively randomly thrown at you.

Agreed. If this pans out to be true it will be a real shame but we shouldn't point the finger until we have the facts

[Dancin' Douggy]

Guys, perhaps having a 'who was the racist?' guessing game isn't the best of ideas? Not meaning to have a go, just you know... not a great label to have relatively randomly thrown at you.

Good post. Really hope this turns out to be nothing

[Scraggers]

This should be moved to the AFL section

.

Your wish is my comand

[Drunken Bum]

Guys, perhaps having a 'who was the racist?' guessing game isn't the best of ideas? Not meaning to have a go, just you know... not a great label to have relatively randomly thrown at you.

Sorry, i agree, i wasn't trying say it was him or imply that in any way, i was actually debating whether to post that or not, in hindsight prob best not to have.
What i was trying to say was he was the first and only player that i thought of just from reading the title, before i even opened it and saw it had to do with racial vilification, given his reported history in sledging etc it was a reasonable connection to make. It was more a statement on how he has come to be seen on here in his short time here, as someone who is prepared to push the limits.

[Drunken Bum]

Your wish is my comand

Can i ask why it has been moved to the AFL section? Like Chef said it is about a bulldogs player, would just like to know the reasoning behind such a move

[Greystache]

We were clearly targeting the first gamer, Joel Wilkinson (no 38), he copped several heavy bumps, and no doubt some verbal as well. He is of African decent, it's possible he's the player in question, but it could be a case of him feeling victimised due to his background, whereas in reality he was being targeted because he's a first gamer and it's standard practice. What some consider challenging a player, someone else might perceive as vilification.

[LostDoggy]

We were clearly targeting the first gamer, Joel Wilkinson (no 38), he copped several heavy bumps, and no doubt some verbal as well. He is of African decent, it's possible he's the player in question, but it could be a case of him feeling victimised due to his background, whereas in reality he was being targeted because he's a first gamer and it's standard practice. What some consider challenging a player, someone else might perceive as vilification.

They did say “comments”. We could also assume that something may have been said without any malicious intent, which is common when communicating with different cultures and sensibilities, but I'd say we're simply scrambling to defend the indefensible because it was uttered from a head on a red white and blue body.

If it's true then education, not punishment, is the key, and I hope whoever said it gets it drilled right into them how unacceptable that kind of thing is. Then we all move on.

[The Pie Man]

The below is from the Herald Sun - so disappointing :(:mad::(




GOLD Coast's leadership group has initiated an AFL vilification inquiry after one of its players complained of being racially abused by a Western Bulldogs player in Saturday's clash at Metricon Stadium.

It is understood a Suns player involved in the match was upset by comments and the side's leaders Gary Ablett, Campbell Brown, Nathan Bock and Michael Rischitelli were outraged by the claims.

They passed on their concerns to club officials, who have asked that an inquiry be launched by the "complaints officer" under the AFL's racial and religious vilification policy.

It is understood the Bulldogs player involved has apologised, but confidential conciliation involving the Suns player and the Bulldogs player now appears likely.

[LostDoggy]

Vilification in sport definately shouldn't be tolerated but its hard to comment without knowing the phrases used. If it is a pup then he should be advised on behaviour at the bulldogs.

[G-Mo77]

Sherman has been suspended for 4 games.

http://twitter.com/#!/AFL_PKeane

Matter from WB v GC game now concluded. Player Justin Sherman has issued formal apology and will serve four-match suspension.

[LostDoggy]

Heck, I can't believe that Sherman did that - he should know better. I must admit I was thinking it was perhaps one of our younger inexperienced players! I am also surprised that he has been named and shamed, I thought it was all supposed to be confidential, i.e., that neither player could be named? Bad, bad, bad.......

[immortalmike]

Well alot of supporters were saying that we're a team with too many nice blokes. This is what happens when players take that sentiment literaly I guess...

[LostDoggy]

Nice one Sherman, like we need to lose a guy that can kick goals at the moment. I was pretty excited about picking him up and early on he looked good. Since then, over the top goal celebrations, a less than total team attitude and now this is starting to put me off him. The guy is quick and talented, the rest can be fixed.

[Go_Dogs]

I've just edited a couple of posts and removed some comments speculating about who this article may have related to.

[The Pie Man]

Couldn't find anywhere else to post this.

I just read a post from Joel Wilkinson from late last week re: suing the AFL over his mis-treatment when a player, and he mentions Peter Gordon represented the AFL (as well as multiple clubs & players) in this matter.

That doesn't sit well with me....at all.

[Axe Man]

Couldn't find anywhere else to post this.

I just read a post from Joel Wilkinson from late last week re: suing the AFL over his mis-treatment when a player, and he mentions Peter Gordon represented the AFL (as well as multiple clubs & players) in this matter.

That doesn't sit well with me....at all.

How so?

I am assuming Peter did this in his professional capacity, not as president of our club. He is entitled to earn a living.

Lawyers represent murders, rapists, pretty much the worst human kind has to offer. That doesn't mean they condone their client's actions or views. It's just their job.

[The Pie Man]

How so?

I am assuming Peter did this in his professional capacity, not as president of our club. He is entitled to earn a living.

Lawyers represent murders, rapists, pretty much the worst human kind has to offer. That doesn't mean they condone their client's actions or views. It's just their job.

AFL club presidents have day jobs - and some even conflict with their role as president (even though they won't admit it)

But the president of the Western Bulldogs, the club who Wilkinson made his debut against and suffered racial vilification from one of our players in, probably should've excused himself from that opportunity.

Not to mention how ordinary the whole thing looks. I'm disappointed.

[Rocket Science]

AFL club presidents have day jobs - and some even conflict with their role as president (even though they won't admit it)

But the president of the Western Bulldogs, the club who Wilkinson made his debut against and suffered racial vilification from one of our players in, probably should've excused himself from that opportunity.

Not to mention how ordinary the whole thing looks. I'm disappointed.

Noted this was re-reported last week and ultimately hesitated to post it. Glad you didn't.

The ethics of acting for the AFEL on a matter like this are for PG to personally weigh, and he evidently has. He owns a long and distinguished record of representing righteous, moral causes.

But, as the head of a club that's spoken at length about its lack of indigenous representation and wanting to remedy that it's not hard to think actions like this give might give Indigenous players cause to doubt our organisational sincerity and creates an air of professional conflict if nothing else.

I'm surprised and pretty disappointed in the President's judgement on this.

[ledge]

Noted this was re-reported last week and ultimately hesitated to post it. Glad you didn't.

The ethics of acting for the AFEL on a matter like this are for PG to personally weigh, and he evidently has. He owns a long and distinguished record of representing righteous, moral causes.

But, as the head of a club that's spoken at length about its lack of indigenous representation and wanting to remedy that it's not hard to think actions like this give might give Indigenous players cause to doubt our organisational sincerity and creates an air of professional conflict if nothing else.

I'm surprised and pretty disappointed in the President's judgement on this.

You do realise this was 9 years ago. A lot has gone under the bridge since then.
That incident must have been settled or it would have come up a lot more back then.

[Rocket Science]

You do realise this was 9 years ago. A lot has gone under the bridge since then.
That incident must have been settled or it would have come up a lot more back then.

You do realise Wilkinson commenced legal action against the Suns, the AFEL and other parties in 2018 which was when our President was engaged by the league to act in their defence.

Reporting on the outcome of those proceedings seems vague but according to Wilkinson (https://medium.com/@joel.wilkinson3/if-not-now-when-d21688acaab8) he "removed himself from legal proceedings towards the end of 2019 as he was being pushed into settlement with a non-disclosure agreement" (https://wwos.nine.com.au/afl/afl-hypocritical-on-racism-wilkinson/3eea3eef-0330-4b08-8f64-0d10f53219df).

So our President was acting on behalf of the AFEL as recently as late last year ... Around the same time he spoke passionately at a televised end of year club function about our desire to encourage Indigenous players to our club and to foster stronger Indigenous cultural ties as an organisation.

This SBS article (https://www.sbs.com.au/news/gordon-to-act-for-afl-in-wilkinson-case) touches on PG's involvement including comment from Peter himself ...

"Gordon brushed aside the argument that as Bulldogs president, there is a potential conflict of interest by taking the case.
"I agree the Bulldogs have a separate set of interests to the AFL, but I don't think I have a conflict in this case," he said. "In fact, I have a common interest, with the AFL and all the other clubs, to make sure the issues are addressed and advanced."

I guess you'd have to ask Wilkinson whether he feels his cause has been "advanced" but his recent comments (https://twitter.com/joelwilkinson?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr% 5Eauthor) probably answer that.

I'm extremely uncomfortable with our President's role in this.

Surely the AFEL can find another shill to defend their less than glowing record.

[WBFC4FFC]

You do realise Wilkinson commenced legal action against the Suns, the AFEL and other parties in 2018 which was when our President was engaged by the league to act in their defence.

Reporting on the outcome of those proceedings seems vague but according to Wilkinson (https://medium.com/@joel.wilkinson3/if-not-now-when-d21688acaab8) he "removed himself from legal proceedings towards the end of 2019 as he was being pushed into settlement with a non-disclosure agreement" (https://wwos.nine.com.au/afl/afl-hypocritical-on-racism-wilkinson/3eea3eef-0330-4b08-8f64-0d10f53219df).

So our President was acting on behalf of the AFEL as recently as late last year ... Around the same time he spoke passionately at a televised end of year club function about our desire to encourage Indigenous players to our club and to foster stronger Indigenous cultural ties as an organisation.

This SBS article (https://www.sbs.com.au/news/gordon-to-act-for-afl-in-wilkinson-case) touches on PG's involvement including comment from Peter himself ...

"Gordon brushed aside the argument that as Bulldogs president, there is a potential conflict of interest by taking the case.
"I agree the Bulldogs have a separate set of interests to the AFL, but I don't think I have a conflict in this case," he said. "In fact, I have a common interest, with the AFL and all the other clubs, to make sure the issues are addressed and advanced."

I guess you'd have to ask Wilkinson whether he feels his cause has been "advanced" but his recent comments (https://twitter.com/joelwilkinson?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr% 5Eauthor) probably answer that.

I'm extremely uncomfortable with our President's role in this.

Surely the AFEL can find another shill to defend their less than glowing record.

I agree with the sentiments you are expressing. I trust you are a Non-Lawyer like myself?

I still can't fathom how Julie Bishop ever defended Gina Reinhardt in Perth over the Blue Sky Mine Case (Midnight Oil song base on these tragic events) before she entered Politics. It never hurt Julie's career. As Lawyer's all say you get paid to do a job. I even have a good mate who is a Criminal Lawyer who has successfully argued on behalf of Rapists! That's not helping society I would have thought.

It's another world I can't get my head around. In saying that surely Peter would have felt pressured, given the AFL "asked". He knows more than us. Does he really want the Club to be disadvantaged because he said No to this? Who know's?

[FrediKanoute]

I agree with the sentiments you are expressing. I trust you are a Non-Lawyer like myself?

I still can't fathom how Julie Bishop ever defended Gina Reinhardt in Perth over the Blue Sky Mine Case (Midnight Oil song base on these tragic events) before she entered Politics. It never hurt Julie's career. As Lawyer's all say you get paid to do a job. I even have a good mate who is a Criminal Lawyer who has successfully argued on behalf of Rapists! That's not helping society I would have thought.

It's another world I can't get my head around. In saying that surely Peter would have felt pressured, given the AFL "asked". He knows more than us. Does he really want the Club to be disadvantaged because he said No to this? Who know's?

Lawyers, including criminal lawyers are there to argue their client's case. They don't make the ultimate decision. The burden of proof in the majority of criminal cases lies with the State, the prosecution has to prove - BEYOND all REASONABLE DOUBT, that an individual is guilty of a crime they are charged with. Whilst helping a rapist get off a charge grabs the headlines and has people wondering how this is to the benefit of society, look at it from another perspective.

The Burden of Proof, Beyond Reasonable Doubt is set as a high standard because its not enough for an individual to be probably guilty and have their freedom removed. If all that was needed was conviction in the court of public opinion it would allow the state cart-blanche the ability to incarcerate people on very little evidence or where the facts were at best dubious. Whilst in the case of a person who is a rapist this means they get off unless the case against the is strong and the evidence is compelling, what it means is that someone against who the evidence is 50-50 or against which the claims are pure fantasy is not convicted.

The State is driven by political factions. As legislators they hold too much power to criminalise behaviors and prosecute people who may not agree or act within the the State's ideal of what is accepted. Think not of Australia, but say of Dictatorships where opposition is quashed mercilessly and being on the wrong side of a divide isn't just being on the wrong side of an argument, but also likely to get you killed. Personally, I will take the times that the judicial system wrongly releases a person over a criminal justice system which prioritises political expediency over justice.

Long winded way of saying....lawyers have a job to do and that job, though not apparent does a public service in a way that is less obvious, but more important than you think.

[jeemak]

Lawyers, including criminal lawyers are there to argue their client's case. They don't make the ultimate decision. The burden of proof in the majority of criminal cases lies with the State, the prosecution has to prove - BEYOND all REASONABLE DOUBT, that an individual is guilty of a crime they are charged with. Whilst helping a rapist get off a charge grabs the headlines and has people wondering how this is to the benefit of society, look at it from another perspective.

The Burden of Proof, Beyond Reasonable Doubt is set as a high standard because its not enough for an individual to be probably guilty and have their freedom removed. If all that was needed was conviction in the court of public opinion it would allow the state cart-blanche the ability to incarcerate people on very little evidence or where the facts were at best dubious. Whilst in the case of a person who is a rapist this means they get off unless the case against the is strong and the evidence is compelling, what it means is that someone against who the evidence is 50-50 or against which the claims are pure fantasy is not convicted.

The State is driven by political factions. As legislators they hold too much power to criminalise behaviors and prosecute people who may not agree or act within the the State's ideal of what is accepted. Think not of Australia, but say of Dictatorships where opposition is quashed mercilessly and being on the wrong side of a divide isn't just being on the wrong side of an argument, but also likely to get you killed. Personally, I will take the times that the judicial system wrongly releases a person over a criminal justice system which prioritises political expediency over justice.

Long winded way of saying....lawyers have a job to do and that job, though not apparent does a public service in a way that is less obvious, but more important than you think.

Nailed.

I was just going to say everything's a bit worse without heaps of educated and experienced people overseeing stuff.

[The Pie Man]

My view isn't based on a prejudice against lawyers - and I'm sympathetic to any potential 'pressure' one *may* have felt to represent the AFL.

My view is he should not have taken this case specifically being the president of the club, considering our club's unfortunate involvement in Wilkinson's experience.

We take a knee today, but in 2018 we argued against a young man's experience of racism while a player that our club had involvement in. It remains disappointing.

[Twodogs]

I know that in a criminal case there are very limited reasons why a lawyer can refuse to take a brief to represent a client. They cannot refuse a brief if:

-The case is within their capacity, skill and experience;

-The barrister is available to work, and not already committed to other professional or personal engagements which may prevent the barrister from advancing the clients interests to the best of their ability;

-The fee offered is acceptable

-No other exception applies (for example, there would be a conflict of interests, it is reasonably likely that the barrister will required in court for another client on the same day or a barrister may be required to cross-examine a friend or family member)


This is known as the cab-rank rule and it means that unpopular clients or causes will still be able to get representation.

It also means that barristers who take on such cases should be spared criticism for doing so.

But this would be a civil case and the rules I've read about those are a little bit hard to find and are also contradictory.

[The Pie Man]

Despite the club having had direct involvement in Wilkinson’s complaint?

From my uneducated perspective, that’s a conflict.

[Twodogs]

Despite the club having had direct involvement in Wilkinson’s complaint?

From my uneducated perspective, that’s a conflict.

I would think so too but PG would know more more about a potential COI then us. Was he the president or did he have any official role with the club at the time? Maybe it comes down to that?

The AFL deserve the legal representation they want, the same as Joel Wilkinson deserves the legal representation as he wants. I dislike the AFL and what happened as much as anyone else but this is one of the the few things that I see in absolutes. It makes me uncomfortable saying that an organisation should be refused legal representation for any reason. It's the start of a very slippery slope.

[bornadog]

I would think so too but PG would know more more about a potential COI then us. Was he the president or did he have any official role with the club at the time? Maybe it comes down to that?

The AFL deserve the legal representation they want, the same as Joel Wilkinson deserves the legal representation as he wants. I dislike the AFL and what happened as much as anyone else but this is one of the the few things that I see in absolutes. It makes me uncomfortable saying that an organisation should be refused legal representation for any reason. It's the start of a very slippery slope.

He became President in October 2012, so after the incident.

If a lawyer knows you are guilty and you want to plead not guilty, then they cannot represent you.

[Twodogs]

He became President in October 2012, so after the incident.

If a lawyer knows you are guilty and you want to plead not guilty, then they cannot represent you.

And the only way they can know you are guilty is if you tell them that you are guilty.

[bornadog]

And the only way they can know you are guilty is if you tell them that you are guilty.

Yep, you don't tell them

[Bulldog Joe]

Despite the club having had direct involvement in Wilkinson’s complaint?

From my uneducated perspective, that’s a conflict.

Actually, we don't know if this even relates to the incident involving our player.

That incident was dealt with at the time. There may have been other events that Wilkinson was aggrieved about.

The other issue is that Wilkinson (on my understaning) is not indigenous, so there should be no concern from the indigenous community.

[Rocket Science]

I agree with the sentiments you are expressing. I trust you are a Non-Lawyer like myself?

I plainly ain't no lawyer.


It's another world I can't get my head around. In saying that surely Peter would have felt pressured, given the AFL "asked". He knows more than us. Does he really want the Club to be disadvantaged because he said No to this? Who know's?

I'd be stunned if PG would allow himself or his club to be compromised in this way, but rather than a passable rationale, that scenario doesn't strike you as deeply problematic?

"Hey Peter, nice club you've got there, be a shame if something happened to it. We need you to do a job for us."

Are we really willing to accept our President being coerced into representing the interests of an organisation that might behave this way? Let alone on this particular issue and the personal (club) and public (society) stakes involved?

----

More broadly, nobody's turning this into a screed against the legal profession or PG's right to earn a crust.

The fact remains in 2020 an ugly culture still pervades our game, not only in the stands but at club level and conceivably higher. Who realistically thinks Collingwood's an outlier? The media the league ingratiates itself with is also culpable, unsurprisingly because it's littered with the same perpetuators and deadshit appeasers that comprise the body politic of the league. It's one giant chum bucket of privilege, organisational nepotism and conflict of interest and everyone's pretty relaxed with the way things are thanks very much.

Ask Eddie Betts if he's feeling relaxed. Or Adam Goodes. Or Lumumba. Or Wilkinson.

The league by it's own admission isn't doing enough on this issue. Performative gestures for public consumption and non-disclosure settlements behind the scenes won't cut it.

There's an overdue reckoning happening on race, and I'd much rather our President wasn't representing the interests of an organisation that's at best, dragging its feet on the issue and at worst, internally resistant to proper, substantive change while shielding a culture of neanderthalism that damages young men in its orbit.

And even if one scoffs all of this and thinks simple pragmatism should rule the day ... It's counterproductive for our club to lament negligible-to-no Indigenous representation heaped with public wishes to remedy that situation while our President chooses to act to minimise the league's exposure on issues of race and by extension enables it to continue to avoid the issue and sideline inconvenient voices to that end.

It reeks.

[Rocket Science]

Actually, we don't know if this even relates to the incident involving our player.

That incident was dealt with at the time. There may have been other events that Wilkinson was aggrieved about.

The other issue is that Wilkinson (on my understaning) is not indigenous, so there should be no concern from the indigenous community.

I'd love you to run me through this line of logic.

[Bulldog Joe]

I'd love you to run me through this line of logic.

The line of logic is that we can't attract indigenous players, but we have no issue in having an African in Johannisen as one of our regulars.

Any issue we see being compromised because of the Wilkinson situation is surely mitigated by the way we appear to have embraced players of other races, such as Johannisen and Jong.

To my mind this just makes it another case and while Wilkinson himself is coming from a racial vilification position, it doen't mean PG defending the AFL is condoning anything.

It just could be that the case has been handled reasonably, but Wilkinson wants more.

We just don't know and it is not prudent to draw conclusions without sufficient knowledge.

[Twodogs]

Actually, we don't know if this even relates to the incident involving our player.

That incident was dealt with at the time. There may have been other events that Wilkinson was aggrieved about.

The other issue is that Wilkinson (on my understaning) is not indigenous, so there should be no concern from the indigenous community.

Correct. His heritage is Nigerian.

We don't even know that it's purely a racial vilification issue. Wilkinson is claiming racial, religious and sexual vilification caused him to stop playing in the AFL.

[Rocket Science]

The line of logic is that we can't attract indigenous players, but we have no issue in having an African in Johannisen as one of our regulars.

Any issue we see being compromised because of the Wilkinson situation is surely mitigated by the way we appear to have embraced players of other races, such as Johannisen and Jong.

To my mind this just makes it another case and while Wilkinson himself is coming from a racial vilification position, it doen't mean PG defending the AFL is condoning anything.

It just could be that the case has been handled reasonably, but Wilkinson wants more.

We just don't know and it is not prudent to draw conclusions without sufficient knowledge.

So something akin to 'it's not an Indigenous brother, thus not really my problem?'

That's very glass half full to put it diplomatically.

Something tells me that's not quite how people of colour might break this down.

[Bulldog Joe]

So something akin to 'it's not an Indigenous brother, thus not really my problem?'

That's very glass half full to put it diplomatically.

Something tells me that's not quite how people of colour might break this down.

I am sorry, but you are misrepresenting me.

Just because Wilkinson believes he has a problem, it doesn't automatically follow that the problem is entirely the fault of others and PG defending a party, that is one of the others, also doesn't mean that PG doesn't have the utmost respect for the concerns being raised.

There currently seems a need to be offended, even without knowledge of the actual complaint.

Personally, I am not invested in the particular issue of whether PG should act for the AFL in this particular case as I really know no detail of the case.

What I have said is that the club has embraced people of other races and I am happy that they do.

There seems some insinuation at the club has a racial problem because of the lack of indigenous players. I don't see that and clearly there is evidence that our NGA program will lead to indigenous players happily coming to the club.

[Rocket Science]

"The other issue is that Wilkinson (on my understaning) is not indigenous, so there should be no concern from the indigenous community."

Is that the statement I've misrepresented? How else should it be interpreted?

All I know is I'm super glad I've had my daily need to be offended fulfilled. This is definitely about people's "current" need for perpetual offence and not at all about the league's self confessed inability to do better on issues of racism that aren't going away without being properly and sincerely addressed, for its own good and the welfare of its players.

Trust me I'd much rather be pissing and moaning about selection than our President helping the league avoid doing a better job on that front.

[The Pie Man]

I'm not seeking out offence where there is none - I'm more disappointed in our involvement than offended. I read Wilkinson's post, saw Gordon's name, and the further I read, the more uncomfortable I became.

I wonder how he would view this in retrospect?

Ultimately, I'm concerned with what's in the best interests of the footy club, and I don't feel any of our involvement here is.

[bornadog]

I'm not seeking out offence where there is none - I'm more disappointed in our involvement than offended. I read Wilkinson's post, saw Gordon's name, and the further I read, the more uncomfortable I became.

I wonder how he would view this in retrospect?

Ultimately, I'm concerned with what's in the best interests of the footy club, and I don't feel any of our involvement here is.

Sorry if you have mentioned this, but where is the conflict? PG wasn't President in 2011, and that issue was as far as I know resolved at the time.

[Bulldog Joe]

Sorry if you have mentioned this, but where is the conflict? PG wasn't President in 2011, and that issue was as far as I know resolved at the time.

Additionally, we don't even know if that incident has anything do with the situation that PG is working for the AFL on.

[Bulldog Joe]

"The other issue is that Wilkinson (on my understaning) is not indigenous, so there should be no concern from the indigenous community."

Is that the statement I've misrepresented? How else should it be interpreted?

All I know is I'm super glad I've had my daily need to be offended fulfilled. This is definitely about people's "current" need for perpetual offence and not at all about the league's self confessed inability to do better on issues of racism that aren't going away without being properly and sincerely addressed, for its own good and the welfare of its players.

Trust me I'd much rather be pissing and moaning about selection than our President helping the league avoid doing a better job on that front.

I think I have explained that those trying to draw an inference from this about our inability to attract indigenous players are misplaced.

We have clearly show we embrace people of other cultures through the players currently on our list.

[The Pie Man]

Shine’s employment law expert, Will Barsby, said the league failed in its duty of care and allowed the “racial abuse, sexual taunting in the locker room, bullying and mistreatment” to continue, despite repeated requests for help.

Barsby said the AFL failed to protect Wilkinson from vilification beginning with his first game, when he debuted at 19 in 2011.

[bornadog]

Shine’s employment law expert, Will Barsby, said the league failed in its duty of care and allowed the “racial abuse, sexual taunting in the locker room, bullying and mistreatment” to continue, despite repeated requests for help.

Barsby said the AFL failed to protect Wilkinson from vilification beginning with his first game, when he debuted at 19 in 2011.

Disgraceful treatment.

[azabob]

Sorry if you have mentioned this, but where is the conflict? PG wasn't President in 2011, and that issue was as far as I know resolved at the time.

It may not be a direct conflict but in my view it is not a good look that PG is representing the AFL in such a sensitive matter.

[bornadog]

It may not be a direct conflict but in my view it is not a good look that PG is representing the AFL in such a sensitive matter.

Why? I can't see the issue, PG is a professional

[Rocket Science]

The bar's so low in AFEL World on the concept of conflict of interest it's six feet under and frames what PG's doing as routine given all conflicts in league circles *are* routine and business as usual.

Setting aside potential conflicts, would we be comfortable with our President choosing to defend the league against allegations of say, rife sexism in an era when more examples of it are coming to light, coupled with growing questions about the league's inaction and wilful resistance to addressing the problem openly and seriously?

Probably not, so why's it more palatable if we replace 'sexism' with racism?

The noise around this issue isn't going away, thankfully. In part due to this sort of garden variety bile (https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2020/06/26/nicky-winmar-suing-sam-newman-and-co-hosts-attempt-revise-historical-moment) from elder statesmen of the game who're clearly accustomed to feeling comfortable demeaning an indigenous player while the league that's long harboured them happily trades on the feel-good symbolism of Winmar's stand.

If Pete had better judgement he might've read the room before doing Gillon's bidding.