.
Guess who requested to do a media conference with Eddie McGuire? Yep that self interested Harry O'Brien.
Not happy with 44,000 twitter followers, O'Brien asked McGuire if he could go on the next media interview that McGuire had scheduled. The scheduled interview was the AFL's 360 segment.
This is exactly the point i was trying to make yesterday with people using the issue to self promote.
O'Brien had already made his point via his twitter account so what else did he need to achieve? Who else requested the television spotlight? I didn't see Adam Goodes request to go on or anybody else for that matter, just Harry O'Brien.
We are hounding the AFL to investigate the O'Brien - Hawkins incident. Don't know how much luck we will have on this matter but rest assured we'll keep at it until O'Brien faces the music.
If O'Brien is not guilty of calling Hawkins a fa@#$% then he is guilty of discriminating against people who are over weight. Every day in Australia kids are being bullied in school yards because of their weight yet O'No thinks it's ok to abuse somebody about their weight. What is the difference between McGuire's gaff and O'No's gaff. Absolutely nothing but O'No wants his platform to push his own agenda which is himself.

EDDIE IN THE HOT SEAT.  

How Precious Have We Become?

By Mark Humphrey

Collingwood President Eddie McGuire has landed himself in hot water with a comic remark about getting Adam Goodes to promote the new musical King Kong. In what was no more than an attempt to provide some comical relief on his morning breakfast show, McGuire has been hammered from pillar to post by the ensuing media throng with calls by some that he should be stood down from his position.

This now has become typical of the hysteria generated by the media when racial comments are blown out of all proportion by wrongful reporting. The fact of the matter is that these issues on racial vilification are only headlined by the media conglomerates as they sell news. If Australians grew a tolerance to the lop sided reporting of racial issues then the newspapers would drop the subject like a hot scone. If this was to happen then the Indigenous population would be the biggest losers which I thought by now they would have realised.

Today Adam Goodes was faced by a situation where it was reported that he may have been vilified by Eddie McGuire. From what I understand a simple phone call from McGuire to Goodes apologising for the remark was accepted by Goodes with Goodes making the twitter comment that he is moving on. Fantastic and any misunderstanding between the two of them had been sorted out. Well that’s what you would have expected.

10 hours later and it’s the lead in story for the television news stations with some suggesting that McGuire should be stood down or even worse sacked. When are we going to get it that these issues are being reported for the wrong reasons?

What was wrong with the simple conversation and apology acceptance between the two parties concerned which would have taken no more than 10 minutes? Issue finished with!

Why didn’t the exact same situation take place on Friday night with Goodes? Unfortunately Goodes fell for the exposure trick rather than simply arranging to talk to the 13 year old girl outside of the prying media. For Goodes to put that girl through the rollercoaster ride that pursued, he obviously did so without taking into account the emotional wellbeing of a 13 year old girl.

Even league chief Demetriou seems to differ on his opinion with regards to racial comments and from whom they come from. Remember that Demetriou went on record last year for saying that he supported the Adelaide Crows for terminating the services of Matt Rendell after Rendell made comments in regards to scouting Indigenous players. Earlier today Demetriou said that McGuire had made a mistake and apologised for it and that he thought McGuire was genuine in his remorse. So Rendell wasn’t?

As of this evening Demetriou has announced that McGuire will face section 30 of the AFL Players Act which addresses Racial and Religious Vilification. Why the change from the the lunchtime opinion?

You have to ask yourself why Demetriou would take such a different stance on the two comments. How is it that suggesting that Goodes should promote King Kong is not 10 fold more racially vilifying (given the Friday night incident) than the recruiting statement made by Rendell?  Why is Demetriou standing idle on this latest situation? Unfortunately it’s all about exposure and more over the timing of exposure.

I listen to McGuire’s breakfast show most mornings and the comment made today by McGuire with regards to the King Kong promotion was seen as nothing more than a joke. At no time did I think there was any Sinicism with the skit. It may have been a bit left of centre but that’s it. No malice what soever. Only after the media had picked it up and run with the story did the situation start to gather momentum for the wrong reason. The triple m breakfast show has a girl working in the background named Rosie. I wonder what the reaction would have been if Rosie inadvertently voiced the throw away remark?

You can work that one out for yourself which is further testament to my belief that people and organisations push this vilification issue for the wrong reasons which unfortunately may not benefit the Indigenous Community in the long run.

Just a note to finish on. Collingwood player Harry O’Brien has jumped on the self-interest band wagon which comes as no surprise. Here is a guy who if you listen to some, has not got the courage to stand up to his own wrong doings. It was widely recognised that O’Brien had made a homophobic remark to Geelong forward Tom Hawkins on the ¾ time break during the recent Collingwood V Geelong AFL match. O’Brien was on the end of a homophobic remark by a St Kilda player last season and voiced his disgust at the comment. People suggested at the time of the Hawkins incident that O’Brien was seen clearly voicing the prohibited remark. O’Brien immediately put out a statement saying that he didn’t call Hawkins the name as suggested instead saying that he called him a fat c@#$.

So now we have O’Brien putting out a twitter statement basically condemning McGuire for suggesting Goodes promote King Kong yet there has been no apology coming from O’Brien for the discriminative remark with regards to peoples weight.

If I walked into the top end of Collins St in Melbourne and discriminated against an individual due to their weight you can guarantee that I would be in court facing charges.

So why does O’Brien think that McGuire has something to answer to yet he doesn’t?

No doubt O’Brien has put his 20 cents worth in for his own self-promotion! Why doesn’t O’Brien get his own backyard in order first and stand up to his own convictions?

My hope is that one day there will be no discrimination against any individuals or communities be it Indigenous or not, but until we change the way we use and report on discrimination I can’t see it.

 “It’s All About Me” Goodes

By Mark Humphrey

Now we have seen it all. The AFL in its endeavours to publicly push the Racial Discrimination Code have created it seems a platform for Indigenous players to self-promote. How else could you explain the disgusting manner in which Adam Goodes conducted himself over the weekend all be it with the backing of the AFL.

Now I’m not suggesting for one minute that Adam or any person for that matter should tolerate the abuse levelled at him last Friday night in the Magpies V Swans match, but it seems like Adam was wholly motivated to stand on this purpose built AFL platform and self-promote.

Here was a mature highly sensitive Indigenous sportsperson who showed no regard what so ever towards the wellbeing of a 13 year old girl. Yes she did yell out a remark to Goodes which was unacceptable, but surely when Goodes turned around and noticed a young girl at the centre of his attention you would have thought that he could have handled it differently. Why not just mention it to the security staff and let the venue operators in conjunction with the AFL handle the situation. How the hell could Goodes possibly know how a 13 year old girl would handle the intense media scrutiny that would be thrust upon her? How would he know how this girl would handle Facebook bullying if that situation arose? How would he know what type of effect this situation may have on the girl in her later years? The answer is that Adam Goodes had no idea on the answers to these questions and I suspect at the time he didn’t care.

Even the next day Goodes conducted a media session speaking about how he was hurting and that he couldn’t even go onto the ground to celebrate the win. What a self-indulging individual he is.  He was called a primate name for crying out load. Our Prime Minister is called another type of primate most days and just goes on with the job. His moment of upset against possibly a lifetime of insecurity by a simple 13 year old girl who made a mistake.  Not cool at all.

This is exactly what I meant by the AFL creating this type of platform for our Indigenous players. It gave Goodes the opportunity to push his own barrow with no regard to the wellbeing of anybody else. It’s a shame that a 30+ year old mature adult can use or even worse, decided to use this platform against a 13 year old girl.

Today on the Triple M breakfast show in Melbourne both Luke Darcy and Mick Molloy said it was ok to call someone a ranga but not Goodes an ape as the ranga term would be used jokingly. Let me say this, Goodes is called one type of primate and all hell breaks out yet the highest ranking leader in the country is called another type of primate and that’s ok. What’s wrong here? How is it that Darcy and co thinks it’s acceptable to call the leader of the country a primate name yet it’s not ok to call Goodes a primate name?

It’s about time that people including Darcy and Molloy realised that no one deserves or is entitled to be discriminated against regardless of race or religion and if they think it’s acceptable to call our leader something then it’s acceptable to call Adam Goodes something.

There should not be rules for one group and another set of rules for Indigenous people but unfortunately Governments and the AFL seem to favour this policy. Why can’t everybody just be treated equally without favourtism?

AFL Media Manager Patrick Keane has responded to the article posted on Monday by sportingscribe.com with reference to Collingwood player Harry O'Brien.

 In terms of abuse on-field, the umpires can lay a charge under the Laws of the Game if they hear the abuse that is directed and / or there is a complaint from a player. From last Saturday's match at the MCG, there was no matter regarding Collingwood's Harry O'Brien that was heard by the umpires on the night or directed to the AFL through our match review process.

When there is an on-field matter that is not heard by the umpires, but a player remains aggrieved by what has occurred, the player or his club can complain to the AFL directly via the vilification rules. These rules do not just cover race as you believe, but actually cover any form of vilification IF the player concerned wishes to lay a complaint. The basis of the rules is that the person being vilified chooses to take the action, on the grounds that comments have caused hurt / offence to them. Again, there was no complaint laid by the Geelong club or one of its players on the night. In the case of the incident involving Stephen Milne that you refer to, the words said were heard by an umpire on the night, who laid a charge.

It is the AFL's view that swearing is not appropriate at any time during under-age matches but there will be occasions where there is swearing in senior age football, both at AFL level and at community level. The AFL accepts that swearing is not tolerable to many people, due to their own particular standards, but the lines that have been drawn under our rules relate to vilification around race, sexual identity, sexual orientation, religion, creed and culture, along with the option for a player to lay a complaint in another area IF the player chooses to lay a complaint.

Patrick Keane
AFL Media Manager
 

Reading through the response it is clear that the AFL will move on complaints lodged by a player if there is no umpire evidence. So in the case of Harry O'Brien's remark to Geelong's Tom Hawkins the matter is closed as there was no complaint lodged by Geelong or the player as you would expect. As O'Brien said "it was only banter". I suggest that most remarks on the field are just banter and it's a pity that some people don't see it that way.

O'Brien has been at the centre of on field allegations in the past wanting justice but now the shoe is on the other foot O'Brien claims "oh it was only banter".

Go to the set of the Biggest Loser Harry and yell out the same quote. 

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!

AFL Will Not Investigate O’Brien

By Mark Humphrey

Well what a joke. Once again the AFL has proven that they have a selective discrimination policy.

That selective discrimination policy once again erred on the non-Caucasian side as the AFL said that they will not be investigating the O’Brien incident.  

O’Brien posted on his twitter feed that he actually called Geelong forward Tom Hawkins a “fat F**K” and not a Fat Fa##ot as some have suggested. O’Brien said “it was just on-field banter” and that was it. If that was on field banter then what was Stephen Milne’s comment to O’Brien last year. Surely that was “on- field banter” as well yet Milne received a $3000 fine over the comment.

So why is it that the AFL will not accept a homophobic comment directed at someone but will accept a derogative comment directed towards someone about their weight?

I bet that if I walked into a gym and called a woman a “fat f**k” I would be in court before the ink could dry on the summons and rightly so but apparently the AFL thinks it is ok to call someone a “fat F**K” as they have decided not to investigate the matter. You just have to wonder what the AFL’s reaction would have been if the comment was “fat black f**k”.

If Andrew Demetriou is serious about having a non- discriminative league and paving the way for sporting organisations around the world then he needs to look in his own backyard first.

Sportingscribe.com would like to know how discriminating comments about someone’s color or sexuality differs from discriminating remarks about someone’s body size?

No doubt as per usual the AFL will just let this go away as this type of discrimination is not on their agenda.

Here we go again with the Racial Discrimination saga.

Time to put on the silk gloves.

Latest news in the tabloids is that two Collingwood supporters have been accused of Racially Vilifying Carlton player Chris Yarran.

It is alleged that a Collingwood member has made a formal complaint to the club against two Collingwood members that made racial remarks towards Chris Yarran.

Collingwood has been in this position before when they suspended an existing member for one year based on evidence from a supporter and also from magpie player Dale Thomas who had backed up the complaining member.

Magpie CEO Gary Pert said last night the club had launched an investigation after receiving a formal complaint from a magpie member.

"We have been advised of the seat numbers of the two club members who allegedly racially vilified the Carlton player," Pert said.

"Our position on vilification is absolute. If the allegations are proven, memberships of the offenders will be canceled indefinitely. Several members of the crowd have claimed the language was highly offensive and we are now making contact with other members who may have been within earshot. I would encourage anyone who was at the game and witness to the alleged behavior to contact the club."

AFL boss Andrew Demetriou has mooted league-imposed bans on fans found guilty of severe cases of racial abuse towards players.

Demetriou said he supported Collingwood in its investigation following allegations two members abused Carlton player Chris Yarran during last Sunday's blockbuster at the MCG.

"If there is anyone in the crowd that thinks it's OK in this day and age they will be dealt with if there was proof," Demetriou told 3AW this morning.

"If it was very severe then the AFL might take action... we might prevent someone from going to the football for some period of time."

Both organisations are absolutely correct in saying that no player should be racially discriminated against by any member of the public of indeed opposition players.

BUT WHAT ABOUT DISCRIMINATION IN GENERAL.!

Unfortunately were living in a bubble where all the attention is focused on racism and it fells like everyone has to go into a frenzy when the word is mentioned.

Both Collingwood and the AFL hold up this almighty policy against racial discrimination but what about discrimination in general !!!!!!

Why didn't Gary Pert hold an investigation into a past coach who allegedly called an opposition player a rapist. Is that not discrimination? And if that incident was proven correct would the coach be suspended for a year? I think we all know that answer. I bet every week at a Collingwood game discrimination is leveled against many opposition players and indeed the umpires. Would Pert start suspending supporters for discriminating against any player or official? I think we know the answer to that as well. 

As for Andrew Demetriou and his board the same could be said. Old news i know but Matt Rendell was sacked by Adelaide with the full backing from the AFL. A couple of weeks later one of the AFL'S own staffers made some false racially discriminative remarks without judgment. Further to their one sided stance we now find the AFL is backing an Aboriginal u/18 team . In my world that is discrimination against anybody who is not Aboriginal. Even Aboriginal advocate Dean Rioli suggested the AFL'S move was discrimination. What about young non-Aboriginal footballers from those areas that didn't get the opportunity to play for a TAC U/18 team? Where's the special team for them?

Make no mistake, there is no room in sport for any type of discrimination but It's time the sporting community starting with the AFL and Collingwood looked at our athletes as athletes only and not their race, color, religion or any other category that may exist!

Only when all athletes are treated the same will the divisions that currently exist disappear into the past.