By Steve Kaless
May 15th 2009 @ 7:27am
Related coverage
Caution needed by moral police
Sydney, June 25, 2004. The footy Show's Reg Reagan, the alter-ego of ex-rugby league player Matthew Johns, meets a young look-a-like during a DVD signing at Sydney's Virgin Mega Store. AAP Image/Dean Lewins
Fear not Mums and Dads, your loyal moral protectors of the government and media are here once again to save the day. Forget global warming, financial crisis or even Peter Andre breaking up with Jordan.
Nope, people seem fascinated by the goings on in player’s bedrooms, which is slightly ironic given this whole saga started by people watching the goings on in other player’s bedrooms.
But this issue seems to have morphed into the debate over we need some sort of moral code for our sportsman above and beyond the criminal laws of the land.
The dreaded term “Role Model” has cropped up about one thousand times.
Role models for me is about out-sourcing morality. Given Australians’ incredible appetite for pornography there must certainly have been some parents who have spoken out against Johns only to then watch similar acts on their home PC when their kids were tucked up safely in bed.
As I have argued before I have no problem with players being prosecuted if they have broken the law, but this new morality code seems to be verging on bizarre.
What is more I’ll argue that we are going down a pretty dangerous path by trying to include some sort of clause in a player’s contract which states that they must not be morally questionable when behind closed doors.
I’m not contract lawyer, but I reckon it could be tricky.
First no going out in Kings Cross, then no drinking and now no sex which mums and dads might find off putting even if all parties were consensual.
I’m not condoning non-consensual sexual violence, but here is the rub. Group sex is not abuse.
As off putting as it sounds, group sex happens. Some people are into it. Men are into it, women are into it.
Personally, it has never floated my boat. The thought of seeing any of my mates going at it hammer and tong is more likely to make me join the priesthood and give the game away than take a number. But horses for courses.
I’ve spoken with rugby league players who have known it has gone on in their clubs, I’ve spoken with rugby union players who have also concurred.
I’ve spoken to soldiers, you know the blokes we all call heroes on ANZAC Day, who have had far more grimey tales than any of the aforementioned athletes.
And I’ve also spoken to women who liked the idea (I wasn’t propositioning them at the time, as I said it’s not my bag).
So while commentators and politicians have all spoken motherhood statements like “let’s all unite against abuse” and referred to the fact that no one would ever consent to it they’ve missed the point.
They are wrong, people do.
Maybe that is where things get messy, and the lines blurred.
The women who have commented openly on the topic all seem to have the perspective of the mother speaking about their daughter: “she’d never do it.” If only it were that simple.
Liberal MP Pru Goward made a number of comments this week.
“Risky sexual behaviour doesn’t lead to a white wedding.”
There would surely have been more than a few feminists up in arms at a comment which seemed to imply all women are after a white wedding and toss in a picket fence and domestic duties for good measure.
Maybe not everyone is into white weddings, but just their version of a good time.
Goward also remarked “if there is a young woman in Australia who doesn’t know that having sex with one or two men at once is not risky sexual behaviour she perhaps needs to go back and look at a bit more television.”
Eh? Surely a leading female politician could have better advice than watching some more Bondi Vet or the Biggest Loser.
If you were confused by that opinion then reading the Herald’s Miranda Devine hardly made things clearer.
Devine argued on behalf of all women that “it would be a rare woman who would willingly consent to any experience like that without being damaged in some way.”
No wonder these athletes need education courses.
First no meant no, but now yes might mean no later on down the track.
Politicians aren’t really interested in solutions to these perceived social problems, they are too complex, they just want to sound like they do.
Like the Greens Sarah Hanson-Young who wants a “universal code of conduct” to foster “respectful relationships”.
“Respectful relationship” being what exactly? Do players who get divorced face having their contract torn up? Sounds like classic political hollow rhetoric.
But from reading a lot of the material floating a round in cyberspace, a lot of the anger towards players seems to stem from a sort of envy.
You can sense an anger. These blokes are just dumb footballers, it is not right that they get all the girls and the attention.
Others seem to think it is all justice because they don’t find the Footy Show funny.
Funny how many people feel the need to refer to footballers as stupid, I’ve spoken to plenty and they always seem to come across as more intelligent than great swathes of the population.
Because they have never come close to experiencing the adulation that athletes get they don’t seem to believe the stories of what goes on. It is like “If I have to club them over the head, then so must they.”
From the dawn of time, people have found fame attractive and have indulged those with it.
JFK, Pele, Magic Johnson, George Best, were all exceedingly talented men but whose bedroom antics might not have been one for grandma.
So here is my advice.
To the administrators, you can pour as much money as you want into education to attempt to present a sanitised view of the world to sponsors and families, but you will always get someone who likes something a bit weird between the sheets.
To the players, you can do what you want so long as it is within the law (and let’s face it most things are) and you are positive everyone is as keen to be there as you.
And to the women, if you don’t like what they are saying or offering…..knee them in the balls.
Now bring on the footy… which isn’t actually going too badly given you have a sold out ground for the first time since 2002.
Get Australia's best NRL opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(89)
oikee said | May 15th 2009 @ 7:54am | Report comment
Good call steve, must be hard for some to realise that league players and people who follow the game are only human.
Was very impressed by the footy show last nite. Gave league a human face, drag the game through the gutter and you find out who the humans really are. As for the wolves, well you know what i mean. League really is the great leveller, it can take the hits and move on, go the doggies.
Brett McKay said | May 15th 2009 @ 8:09am | Report comment
Steve, a quality, quality piece. I wholeheartedly agree with everything you’ve written here, and given that I can add no more to this, I’m declaring it time for me to move on. When a sport scandal becomes political as this is starting to, my boredom usually follows.
So again Steve, great artcile, but I’m going to find some footy to talk about, somewhere…
Redb said | May 15th 2009 @ 8:25am | Report comment
Good article and I agree it is ludicrious to put moral clauses in a legal contract. However I’m tipping there will be clauses along the lines of “if you bring the club, image of the game into disrepute your contract maybe terminated” in the future.
I’m with you the group sex doesnt float my boat either but exposed to the light it is ugly for the majority of women many of whom are mothers, but also sponsors and advertisers. So your right many of our top sportsman, soldiers, politicians, CEO’s have do doubt done some very tawdry deeds in the past – realise the reality though if they come to light then their ‘public image’ is shattered and along with it the whole reason a sponsor or advertiser is involved in a club or sport.
It is interesting how we don’t think about or understand issues too deeply until we get a visual presentation like the 4 Corners show (its why Powerpoint was invented) then we far better understand the message.
The horse has bolted, blaming the media which the game thrives on is pointless, improving and restoring the image is paramount.
Redb
macavity said | May 15th 2009 @ 8:42am | Report comment
best article I have seen on the issue full stop.
I can see why you aren’t writing for one of the major papers – you have too much common sense, and I feel you wouldn’t push their anti-league agenda.
redb – you have it back to front – the game doesn’t thrive on the media, the media thrives (and feeds) on the game.
LeftArmSpinner said | May 15th 2009 @ 8:48am | Report comment
Every other sport is talking about their upcoming games this weekend and debating their expansion plans for the future. League is talking about another scandal. Get it yet?
Tom said | May 15th 2009 @ 8:49am | Report comment
I might have agreed with this piece a week and a half ago.
This whole incident has changed my view a bit, to be honest.
Johns, a 30 year old senior player and leader of men, should have done everything he could to protect ‘Clare’, a clearly star struck naive 19 year old girl. Instead he took advantage of her youth and vulnerability, and didn’t question it when the men he should have been leading to do the same. Even if we believe without question the claims that ‘Clare’ consented to everything that happened, its just not on for an older man to treat a young person in this way, and Johns, through his actions, effectively encouraged the other players around him to repeat this behaviour.
He was able to do this because of his status as an athlete. Because of his reputation and experience he provided moral cover for those other men involved, who may well go on to become leaders and encourage other players to do the same.
And while those players may never do anything illegal, clearly they have the potential to severely damage some young, vulnerable girls. Group sex may not be abuse per se, but it certainly has the potential to be abusive. Probably better to refrain from it altogether, I would have thought.
So the issue of role models is very real in this case. Matty Johns may or may not be a role model for the rest of society, but he is certainly a role model for other rugby league players. And if you’re in a position of responsibility you have to protect and respect vulnerable young women.
Personally, I don’t believe that our responsibility as individuals begins and ends with the law. I think it goes beyond that. Particularly if you’re a mature, senior figure in a group of young, unworldly, oversexed men. And particularly in regards to young girls barely out of high school.
Mick of Newie said | May 15th 2009 @ 8:50am | Report comment
A bit simplistic really. Most sensible commentators are not fixated on the legality of it but are more interested in the attitudes that this behaviour reveals.
Maybe Bundy should run some more poor form ads,
Its poor form when you are with a girl to tag in your mate.
Its poor form to watch your mate going for it.
Its poor form to jerk off watching your mate going for it.
Its poor form when your wife and two little kids are at home to be sharing a 19yo girl with your 19yo team mate no matter how up for it she is.
macavity said | May 15th 2009 @ 8:58am | Report comment
yes spinner we get it – there is a media agenda against League.
Redb said | May 15th 2009 @ 9:03am | Report comment
macavity,
the game needs Foxtel, Ch 9, News Limited. Very much a symbiotic relationship.
Redb
The man said | May 15th 2009 @ 9:04am | Report comment
Steve – spot on.
To me it appears that trial by media is the unfairest trial of all – no crime, no need for facts, evidence or cross examination – let alone impartiality.
Calls for others to come forward and face the music – so the 7 year old “story” can be keep going – are self indulgence by the media in the extreme – what do we have to look forward to another week of “show trials”.
Spare me please.
Bring on tonight – a full house at Kogarah for a top of the table clash between 2 traditional foes.
Jameswm said | May 15th 2009 @ 9:16am | Report comment
Sorry Steve
Your article is based on the premise that everything that went on in that bedroom was consensual, including players climbing through windows to get in, and masturbating while watching.
It also neglects the idea of not just being unfaithful, but being unfaithful while your mates watch, and letting them go next. It ignores the lesson Johns taught the other players about being on tour with a bunch of blokes, and the acceptance of an absence of self-control.
The article makes some valid points, but that suspect premise taints the whole article.
I’m with Mick of Newie. And Tom, whose comments are a lot more insightful than the original article, which is too superficial.
Siren's Call said | May 15th 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
Tom – there’s the thing – we’re taking an instance from 2002 and treating it as if it happened last weekend and judging the behaviour on the height set by today’s moral crusaders.
How could any of those Sharks players have known in that 2002 private affair what ethical and moral judgement would passed upon them publically in 2009?
How could Matthew Johns in 2002 have forseen the expectation placed upon him in 2009 when he hadn’t even yet begun or even maybe contemplated his media career?
Judge him if you must, but do it as a 30 year old footballer and not a 37 media personality who owes some wider obligation to the community.
mIckeym said | May 15th 2009 @ 9:24am | Report comment
It seems that there is usually two sides to a story. It’s good to finally read some intelligent rather than emotional response to what has come out.
What I still don’t understand:
1. Why did “Clare” wait 7 years to make this public? Has she recently lost a job, and needs some quick cash?
2. Why do her workmates at the time report that the next day, she came in boasting of her exploits? And continued boasting for the next few days.
3. Why was it that 5 days after the event (after she learnt who it was she bonked), that she then went to the police (who investigated her claims and dismissed them)?
4. Why is her identity being protected? Like the posting stuff on the net, people who have the advantage of anonymity, without the risk of cross examination, can be more bold with their statements.
5. On that note, why hasn’t Tracey Grimshaw been given the opportunity to put “Clare” through the wringer, grilling her to get to the bottom of her version of the “Truth”, rather than the sympathetic interview done by 4 Corners?
I’m yet to decide if I’m for or against John’s in this instance, because I’m yet to hear the full story.
It would be easy to jump to conclusions, and believe everything I’ve read, but I might just leave it a week or two until a fuller picture is available…
sheek said | May 15th 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment
Steve,
Some points. It’s a woman’s prerogative to sleep with as many men as she chooses. She might say yes to two, but that doesn’t mean another dozen can “truck & tralier”. This is the part that a lot of young footballers struggle to understand.
Whether the woman in question is playing ‘ducks & drakes’ with the incident is irrelevant to two other points – firstly, Matty Johns cheated on his wife, in what has transpired to be a rather pathetic way, & secondly, as a senior player he should have exerted more influence on the night’s events.
Football players will continue to be propositioned. And I say to the young bucks, as long as it’s consentual, go for it. But the message for his team mates is this – if he got lucky, & she’s agreed to have sex with him, this isn’t an open invitation for every other team mate.
The media hasn’t helped, but let’s not shift the blame either. I rarely agree with much of what Gus Gould says. But last night on the footy show (which I rarely watch), I thought he was excellent & to the point.
I admire the way Matty Johns has stood up to be counted. He hasn’t shied away from his own wrongdoing in the affair. He’s taken his medicine like a man.
Unlike his so called team “mates” from that night, who continue to hide in the shadows like the slime they are, letting Matt take all the hits. Who knows, if they bothered to come forward, we might get a clearer picture of what occurred.
Siren's Call said | May 15th 2009 @ 9:27am | Report comment
And once we’ve “outed” the Sharks players, what will the media do then? Will their appetite be fully met or will they then demand that the Bulldogs from 2004 fess up too? And then what? Start on the other football codes and cricket? How about a full audit of Australian sport from 1960 to today?
Tom said | May 15th 2009 @ 9:33am | Report comment
Siren, 2002 wasn’t the middle ages. I don’t think standards have really changed much at all since then. Maybe they should have.
And I do judge Johns as a 30 year old player. Thats why I started my post by calling him a 30 year old player.
As it happens though, he’d been in the media through the Footy Show quite a bit prior to 2002.
Redb said | May 15th 2009 @ 9:39am | Report comment
it is pointless laying the blame at the girl and attempting to so the same thing to her that the media have done to Johns. She ahs no iamge to protect, no game to run no heartsandmidns to retaina dw in over.
Whilst rugby league fans concentre on demonising a silly but tragic 19 year old girl, the NSW Catholic schools system (147 of them) are questioning their involvement with rugby league and its players.
The more you vilify the girl the deeper the resentment in other parts of society who aren’t blind to rugby league’s culture problems and it’s lack of recognition for change amongst the clubs and it’s fans.
Redb
Siren's Call said | May 15th 2009 @ 9:41am | Report comment
Good Tom. So explain why this incident was reported in 2002 on Channel nine news and the other tv news and the back page of the Telegraph and nothing much happens. There was apparently a “victim” in 2002 but seems no one cared. Then it comes back in 2009 with no new evidence uncovered and we all want a public lynching.
All I can see that is different is that Four Corners somehow were able to portray a 2002 incident as the latest incident in a line that began in 2004.
Siren's Call said | May 15th 2009 @ 9:46am | Report comment
That’s funny Redb. If the NRL has to educate young men on morals doesn’t that say something about our schools?
Eamonn said | May 15th 2009 @ 9:46am | Report comment
Bit simplistic Steve, and the number of incidents suggest something a tad more disturbing than even the Cronulla incident.
Sexual abuse is rife in Australia. League and other sports have a high profile and surely these type of incidents hardly help promote chances of a better society. The message coming through to our young people time and time again is important in my view..if not yours.
Your advice is way too simplistic, and rife with danger for the young men, the women and the game of Rugby League.
Would you want your son or daughter involved in the Cronulla incident. Your son presumably following your advice and after receiving consent. from the women involved….don’t make me laugh….seven years later he is running scared whatever the rights and wrongs…great advice Steve!! How do you think your son would feel this week?
I think we need a slightly more educated response than women “knee them in the balls,” boys, “you can do anything you want within the law,”
Did you really mean that? or you might have said “anything you want that you can get away with” probably amounts to the same thing doesn’t it.
Stick to writing about the game Steve, seems to me just because you are an expert sports writer…what qualificaitions do you have to giving out advice on such a delicate subjcct…clearly from the advice you give above I’d be terrified of any young League player walking into a club and hearing.
Today we’ve got the Kaless model to work on! Good grief…we’re talking about sexual abuse here Steve, our young men and women deserve much better information than the Kaless model at the local leagues club!
sledgeross said | May 15th 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
“Your article is based on the premise that everything that went on in that bedroom was consensual, including players climbing through windows to get in, and masturbating while watching”
James, and your basing your considerable arguement that it wasnt. SO what are we supposed to do?
Art Sapphire said | May 15th 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
Steve – you also seem to miss the most important point in this whole episode. But I will repeat it to you as well.
1) There is nothing wrong with group sex.
2) There is everything wrong with group sex where the object is to humiliate and degrade one of the particpants.
Some people have a really hard time understanding this simple concept.
This whole issue has nothing to do with perverse sexual practises of NRL players and everything to do with RESPECT.
What we are dealing with here is payback from a woman who ended up subjecting herself to something quite traumatic.
I could not give a stuff if she wanted to sleep with more than a few players, but I doubt she had expected the whole team to crawl in to paricipate or watch the show.
If these NRL players want to create their own perverse home-erotic self admiration societies at least they can have the good sense of arranging this form of bizarre behaviour with a consenting adult before the act.
They can call the escort agency and ask – The request would go something like this.
“Hi love, I need a bird who can come down to the club and perform sex acts with half the club while the other half watch their mates. They might even have a wank over it. We have got a big season coming up and we need to bond like we have never bonded before.”
Now, do you serioulsy think this is what the 19 year old in New Zealand was asked and agreed to before she went up to the hotel room?
P.S Your comments on role models and sport are correct, though. Just get the respect angle right you will be sorted.
oikee said | May 15th 2009 @ 9:53am | Report comment
Good points Sheek, either way you look at what happened i think in the long run rugby league will take the front foot and educate players about Alcohol, drugs and sex. At the very least a program has been in place for 5 years now, which is encourageing.
Just want to say congratulations to souths on signing Dave Taylor. He’s big,strong,skillful and Ugly. Perfect ingredients for a great forward. The flood gates are nearly closed now at the broncos, not many players left.
sledgeross said | May 15th 2009 @ 9:53am | Report comment
Good points Art, but can you prove someone has intentionally sought to degrade and humiliate someone..
Pippinu said | May 15th 2009 @ 10:00am | Report comment
Sledge
I’m sure the boys treated her with the utmost respect (well, as much as the circumstances allowed).
However, even if the 19 year old girl agreed to have sex with two, three, four, five, possibly six players, she may have started having second thoughts when number 7 put up his hand.
But we can imagine her surprise when numbers 8 and 10 tried to squeeze their considerable weight through the doorway to join the party (most probably uninvited).
If that wasn’t bad enough, club officials and various other hangers on appeared to be up for getting their thrills at watching big fat blokes having their way with a 19 year old girl.
At the end of it all, they gave her a friendly pat on the bottom, and said: thanks luv, that was real beaut – you’re a bonza sheila! Here’s our phone numbers if you ever want to meet up for a coffee and for a bit of a chat about the good times we’ve had.
macavity said | May 15th 2009 @ 10:02am | Report comment
Redb, I am a Newcastle Knights fan.
My club had an incident in 2005, and has taken huge steps to clean up its culture – new coach, new CEO, new players, and new policies and new programs.
they have punted (or declined to re-sign) a large number of players to ensure the culture shift was complete and permanent.
I could not be prouder of my club – the players are well behaved, respectful, professional and sober. They are loved by the majority of the town.
To say this is an “NRL” problem is an insult to those clubs that don’t have a problem.
There are 4 clubs in the League renowned for having a bad culture – Manly, Cronulla, Canterbury and Brisbane. Of those, Canterbury has taken massive steps to change theirs. The problems with the others are there for all to see.
3 of 16 clubs have culture issues.
There are isolated incidents elsewhere of course, but these are not “culture” issues, these are “boneheaded individual” issues.
I note the Swans do not get slandered as having “culture issues” when their players have also been involved in sexual assult, exposure to teenage girls and violence.
The NRL clubs may play the same game, but they do not share a common culture any more than China and India share a common culture because they share the same continent.
Koala Bear said | May 15th 2009 @ 10:05am | Report comment
I not sure what you are getting at here Steve ..? The only person who has shown leadership here is David Gallop.. (Not one of my favourite administrators) Certainly not the CEO of the Sharks football club… David’s stand is to be congratulated and Gus has said that the game has been hit by a sledge hammer.. It’s time to reflect on the NRL’s image … Johns and the unknown Sharks’ players have brought the game into distribute… This is not a question of morality but what happened whilst a group of touring NRL players did in camp on tour… This is a different issue to what you have suggested as the so called moral police laying down the law…
Gallop is totally correct for once … in calling for a clause in a player’s contract while representing the game of Rugby League… Any player who chooses to denigrate himself is allowed to do so .. But do it as a civilian not while you are a contracted player in the NRL ..
Johns let himself down as a leader of men and a role model .. Not to mention letting himself down badly.. as a man….
~~~~~~~
KB
Tom said | May 15th 2009 @ 10:14am | Report comment
Sledge, I don’t think it matters whether or not we can prove intent. What matters is in a situation where any decent human being would try and look after a young girl, Johns actively participated in an activity he must have known would be degrading and humiliating.
Siren, what point are you making exactly? Why would I have to explain the media’s reaction in 2002? I didn’t hear about the incident then. If I had, I’m certain I would have had the same reaction as I do now.
If you’re suggesting that society’s attitudes towards group sex by a team of rugby league players towards a 19 year old have changed dramatically in that time, I’d have to disagree with you. Possibly it was more acceptable amongst NRL players back then than it is now, but I don’t feel like that somehow makes it better.
Given Simon Williams’ comments on 4 Corners, and the remarks made by the anonymous player about group sex, you’d think there’s still some work to be done to bring NRL players’ views in line with the rest of society.
oikee said | May 15th 2009 @ 10:15am | Report comment
I really dont think the Catholic Church should be throwing stones, we all know what goes on behind their closed doors.
Jameswm said | May 15th 2009 @ 10:19am | Report comment
Sledgeross
I find it hard to believe the girl consented to players climbing through the windows and masturbating while watching her have sex with others. I’ve kept an open mind on the consent to the actual sex she had with the players.
But below is something I wrote elsewhere in the roar earlier today.
There are two more points I want to add to my earlier post.
9. with the other players climbing through the window, the obvious assumption is that the group thing was premeditated thing. I’d like to know if Johns was part of the planning and if not him, then who?
10. Let’s assume what the co-worker said about her bragging about it later is true and let’s assume the actual sex acts (but not the other guys watching and masturbating and etc) is true, which is the best case scenario for the players. Think through the situation. The girl is drunk and toey, with two hunky guys. Others come in and through a combination of bravado, fear and naiveté, she invites a few others to do likewise. In the cold light of day the next morning, the girl inevitably regrets what she’s done. Several days later, again out of bravado but now self-loathing as well, she brags to a co-worker. None of this changes the facts that (a) the other guys shoud not have come in and (b) the other guys should not have participated. Normal moral standards require people to draw the line. If a girl has a one-nighter (with one guy), and regrets it the next day, then she’s only got herself to blame. But you Johns apologists have to see the difference, as I said earlier, the unequal bargaining positions. The guys simply should not have put her in that position.
As for the others who stood masturbating and touched her with their penis, that borders on homosexual behaviour. Regardless, it’s very wrong and by any standards, odd and blatantly degrading for the girl.
Sledgeross – the question of consent to the supposed sex with 6 guys isn’t the issue – the issue is them coming in to go tag team, climbing through the window and masturbating in the room. I’m assuming that’s were it stopped, and they didn’t ejaculate on her, though this may have happened too.
Can you not see that regardless of the issue of consent to the sex, it was wrong for the others to invite themselves in and do what they did, including the rest of those 6? You can’t see that?
And you can’t see how bad what Matty Johns did was, not just being unfaithful, but doing it in a way that was even more humiliating for his wife? And you have no problem with Johns saying when some things started happening that he wasn’t sure were right, he backed off and left the room instead of speaking his mind, stopping them and showing some judgement and leadership?
oikee said | May 15th 2009 @ 10:22am | Report comment
PIP, ? Hope your not envovled in Media, thats a fascinating story.
Redb said | May 15th 2009 @ 10:33am | Report comment
Oikee, Sirens Call,
There ya go again, attack everyone else but the core of the problem. Even Gould has said rugby league needed a sledgehammer to make change.
The Catholic School comment comes from an article in the SMH. An excerpt below…
“THE NSW school system put the National Rugby League on notice yesterday: its players may no longer be welcome to visit students and more scandals will jeopardise the code’s preferred sporting status in some schools.
The president of the Primary Principals Association, Geoff Scott, said some government primary schools felt it was “not currently appropriate” to host rugby league players because of the sex scandal that has shattered the career of Channel Nine TV star Matthew Johns.
“We hope the clubs and rugby league will be able to take action to ensure that schools can invite rugby league players to schools again,” Mr Scott said.
Dan White, the executive director of 147 Catholic schools in the Sydney archdiocese, a traditional nursery for the game, said serious misgivings were held over the Four Corners exposé of systemic mistreatment of women.
Dr White, a former junior league referee, said the code ran the risk of ending its historic relationship with the Catholic education system, which has produced such players as Peter Sterling, Ben Elias, Jason Taylor and the current Brisbane Broncos coach, Ivan Henjak.
“People responsible for rugby league have to realise that organisations like ourselves are concerned that if this sort of behaviour goes on in the future we have to review our association with the code or club concerned,” Dr White said.”
This is one example of an image problem caused by poor culture and lack of demonstranoable action to fix it. Examples: Roosters taking the WAGS on away trips is a good example of action, Cronulla’s CEO closed book approach is not. The other players must be outed to show the NRL and clubs are serious about addressing the issue. 95% of women won’t tolerate a behind the scenes endorsed culture of group sex.
There are decisions made everyday about kids and sport, not every parent is a 100% dyed in the wool RL fan, there are many who will look at the options and think should send I my child this way or that way.
Redb
Redb said | May 15th 2009 @ 10:44am | Report comment
macavity,
you said: “To say this is an “NRL” problem is an insult to those clubs that don’t have a problem.
There are 4 clubs in the League renowned for having a bad culture – Manly, Cronulla, Canterbury and Brisbane. Of those, Canterbury has taken massive steps to change theirs. The problems with the others are there for all to see”
Point taken and I note Newcastle were the team featured in the 4 Corners show and looked to be trying to get things right. The coach in partiuclar understood the challenge. As you would know the young Knights bloke who said as long you stick her in a taxi and be nice its OK. There is still some way to go, but that’s fine there on the right track.
However, the clubs you mention are high profile, one the Premier, the Broncos the biggest fan base, Cronulla at the centre of this scandal and Canterbury the centre of the previous major scandal in 04. They are still clubs in the NRL.
Redb
oikee said | May 15th 2009 @ 10:46am | Report comment
If i could be bothered, which i am not anymore, i would cut and paste some great reading for you pip from the football antics from england, its nearly a daily occurence over there.
The only people who attack anyone on this site is other codes wanting two-bobs worth everytime they feel there is a opening with rugby league. If you watched the footy show you would have seen the human face of league, its there for all to see, they all bleed and at the lowest point have feelings. Its just patheitc that it has come to this, we are supposed to be known as hardheads and Thugs. Thanks for showing the game up.
sledgeross said | May 15th 2009 @ 10:46am | Report comment
Pip, I do see your point, byut being devils advocate your post is littered with words like “may have” and “imagine”. I feel empathy for the young lady as well, but alot of people here are allowing their good nature and moral outrage to paint a picture that “may be” incorrect.
Tom, if people are using intent to humiliate as vaslidation for their vitriol, then it does have something to do with it. What moral duty of care does one adult have to another in the instance of a one night stand? She was a consenting adult (whether you blokes want to believe it or not doesnt change the facts) who obviously felt she lost control over a situation which she later regretted. Johns picked up a female adult from a bar and had sex with her, thus cheating on his wife. If she sleeps with a bloke after that, what obligation should he have (Im not saying he shouldnt have any, but what should he have done, Im interested to hear your comments). When does his obligation to this tryst end?
James, again, a valid defence arguement, but there are a lot of “ifs” in your story. Im not saying that your assumption isnt correct, but it is still an assumption. You are basing your story on an anonymous witness who your heard speaking for 5 minutes on a television show, with her face smudged out. I would also “assume” that you probably have a pre-existing dislike of rugby league OR maybe be a fan but is sick of the scandals rocking the sport. You are completely ignoring other aspects which means you have a biased view.
I can see your point entirely that it is wrong for players to invite themselves in. No argument from me at all, I concur 100%. I agree that Johns has done a deplorable thing by cheating on his lovely, supportive wife. I agree he should have shown better judgement regards his feeling that it wasnt right. Mate, I agree 100%.
If you read whta Ive said about the matter over the past few days, Ive never defended that action of the players involved at any stage. What I dont like is what I percieve to be unfair crucifying of a person who has erred. I just want people to be fair and see both sides instead of being whipped into a puritanical hysteria by news interview.
onside said | May 15th 2009 @ 10:51am | Report comment
Regardless of all views there is only one rule that counts, ‘Thou shall not get caught’
Steve said | May 15th 2009 @ 10:55am | Report comment
The thing is Pippinu and James, you don’t know what happened in that room or the events that led up to it. You’re quick to run through scenarios that fit with your outrage but you haven’t got a clue what happened. If you think you do because you’re certain that “Claire” could not possibly be untruthful then your naivity forgoes any arguement you may put forward…
The investigation found no crime was committed, it did not end with the “insufficient evidence” tag of many other investigations. Get it through your heads that this means it should now be a private matter between the parties involved and none of your goddam business……..
Art Sapphire said | May 15th 2009 @ 11:01am | Report comment
sledgeross – in regards to your question about proving whether someone intentionally sought to degrade and humiliate someone.
Thats a really good question.
You could make an argument saying that due to the NRL players undeveloped and primitive attitude to women that what they did was not intentional. They thought it was normal behaviour. I can understand this point of view.
However, in the old days the act of degrading a black man, was considered normal behaviour by many.
Jameswm said | May 15th 2009 @ 11:02am | Report comment
Sorry sledge – there are no ifs at all in my story. I even gave the RL players the benefit of the doubt, and showed how it still shows them in a poor light. Johns has not denied what went on in that room. The only point where he disagreed with the girl was on the issue of consent.
Having said that I don’t see why we’re arguing, as you can see the points I’m trying to make and agree.
If you’re talking about unfairly crucifying him, the main point would be he still doesn’t get it. He still thinks cheating on his wife is the worst thing he did that night.
He lost his job because after a story like that, most of which was not contested, he is pretty useless to any media outlet. His ACA interview was a start, time will help, and he will have to come back bit by bit.
sledgeross said | May 15th 2009 @ 11:14am | Report comment
Good counterpoint Art, if these blokes think its acceptable, where is the intent. Might have to be tested in court
SOrry James, we do agree about the crux of the matter, but IF you think there are no “ifs” and that you haven given any player the benefit of the doubt, I think you are wrong, respectfully. Yes, there was consentual sex with multiple people, but your other “facts” are not verified, and you are intuiting on what “probably” happened.
And you, personally, doesnt think he “gets it”. That is merely your opinion. According to his story the only thing he should feel guilty about is cheating on his wife. You are believing her version of events instead of his. I think thats unfair.
Anyway, Im sure we have had enough of this, and as we have both said, we agree on majority of things, and its just sematics really.
Enjoyed all of your posts everyone!
oikee said | May 15th 2009 @ 11:20am | Report comment
Well i have been calling to get rid of the Dinosaurs now nearly every blog. Rugby league needs a cleanout, from admin to clubs and Media personalities. Hopefully now someone satrts to listen to my rants, its common sense. A bit like old school, its no longer warrented for a fast moving genaration like we have now.
Tom said | May 15th 2009 @ 11:20am | Report comment
No sledge, intent is still not the issue. Whether we call it ‘intent’ or ‘callous disregard’ I don’t think makes a jot of difference to the responsibility we all have, and particularly leaders of men like Johns have, to look after the safety and dignity of the people we come into contact with every day. And just because they consent to a sexual act (which I’ve never denied. I don’t know why you suggest that I did) does not mean that responsibility ends.
I’m not going to comment on your hypothetical. You’ll have to explain to me why you think its relevant. Possibly you don’t understand what it is that I object to about this incident.
Pippinu said | May 15th 2009 @ 11:27am | Report comment
Steve
(is that Steve the writer of this article?)
As I’ve said to Art a couple of times, I am quite comfortable with my conclusions as to what “probably” happened. (girl meets boy, he says how about it, she says yeh awright, he says what about my mate here, she says yeh awright, he says and what about him, she says, um ok, he says, and him, um, well… he says and him, um… by which time she is absolutely gagging and is incapable of saying boo to anyone, and by which time the room is bursting at the seams with players and officials, most of whom are pretty big hefty blokes with whom one rarely wishes to argue, you know, the uninvited and highly undesreable numbers 8 and 10 – little wonder she’s had nightmares about it for seven years)
Pippinu said | May 15th 2009 @ 11:35am | Report comment
“the evidence found that no crime was committed”
Was that before or after it was revealed that they were coming in through the bathroom window to have a bit of a gander (and maybe a poke around themselves if it was opportune)
Now I don’t know about everyone else here, but I’d be mighty pissed off if people were coming through the bathroom window to have a look at my clumsy attempts at having sex – is there a loophole in the law that allows people to come in through the bathroom window?
Is it the Beatles defence?
sledgeross said | May 15th 2009 @ 11:45am | Report comment
Tom, thanks for your opinion. Interesting you have nominated Johns as a leader of men. Is that your opinion as well? Have you always treated people with the dignity and respect they deserve?
Not sure what you mean by my hypothetical. I was just stating the facts of the case?
Diplomatic Immunity said | May 15th 2009 @ 11:49am | Report comment
I been reading a lot of the blogs on this topic and a lot of the argument is just getting circular. In one camp you have the moral highgrounders screaming what if was your daughter, your son, although she may have given consent did she ask for 12 people to be in the room? and blindly believing all they see and read. And in the other those that are trying to rationalise the discussion and blogs and like all, make some sense of it. And you know what, it reeks of the crusades through the ages with the highgrounders taking the position that if you’re not with us then you’re surely against us, and by definition must be a bad person both morally and ethically. Next they will be calling for burning at the stake for anyone who does not join them on the highground. And you know what history has taught us, that through the ages the harder position to defend has always been the one that is least popular and by that read anything opposed to the highgrounders. Well guess what higrounders, maybe your blind faith might be just a bit off on this one. Maybe, just maybe there are two sides to the story and because you choose to blindly follow the populist view take time to consider that all that you see read is at the judgement of the newspaper and TV editors. Can you honestly tell me that you have never seen or read a news story that was close to you and knew that the editing and questions had put a slant on a story that wasn’t quite correct? Can you tell me that the CA interview with Matt didn’t leave you with the sense that there was more to the back story than Mat was allowed or prepared to say? And I don’t mean that in a way that would benefit the lady’s cause, clearly he was talking with tied hands. But then I don’t expect the highgrounders to see this because they don’t want too. In particular what has struck me about this over the last couple of days is that on several occasions, without forwarding my opinion on the matter in discussion with females that they to a voice have condemned the women. Before you condemn these women, know this, they are your typical office work colleagues, not idealistic group sex advocates. I could go on and dare say will have to once the highgrounding bloggers get hold of this. But if, as you will, take shot at me, just pause before automatic reflex takes hold of you and you start pounding the keyboard with the same old arguments have you really, I mean really tried to objectively asses all the information and the sources from which it came? And if you have then have a crack. But finally a question tot he highgrounders, what of the latest statements about her boasting about the incident, what do you make of that? And before you try and reason it with all sorts of physiological analysis DONT unless you are suitable qualified because if you do it’s just your highground attitudes again rationalising the information to suit. If you are interested in the size stake you will need for the burning I about 175cm.
Pippinu said | May 15th 2009 @ 12:07pm | Report comment
There are two sides to the story.
On one side stand 13 of the biggest, ugliest boofheads you’ve ever come across (along with a few club officials and assorted hangers on).
On the other side is a 19 year old girl.
I pass absolutely no moral judgement on the equity or otherwise of the equation.
Tom said | May 15th 2009 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
‘If she sleeps with a bloke after that, what obligation should he have (Im not saying he shouldnt have any, but what should he have done, Im interested to hear your comments). When does his obligation to this tryst end?’
Yeah, hypothetical was probably the wrong word. When I first read it I thought you were posing another scenario slightly different from the one we were discussing. My mistake.
But as it happens I do try to always treat people with the dignity they deserve. Thank you for asking.
And at the times where I don’t treat people as well as I might like to, there are usually consequences commensurate with my actions. As there are now for Johns.
Diplomatic Immunity, I suspect that the ‘highgrounders’, which are presumably some lost Scottish tribe, will not read your post because it’s terribly written and has no indentation, rather than because they don’t want to.
Pippinu said | May 15th 2009 @ 12:26pm | Report comment
There’s a small article in the HS this morning about the current Sharks management asking players who were involved in this affair to own up.
Brett Kimmorley has come forward to say he was NOT involved.
He says that he was playing golf that day with other teammates when the incident occurred.
He said the he was “lured to the room by a large gathering” but he didn’t enter and went back to his room.
One wonders how large is a “large gathering”?
It does show that there was a bit of an open door policy and thus many who were uninvited clearly made their way into that room.
For some reason, others preferred coming in through the bathroom window.
Perhaps numbers 8 and 10 really were blocking up the doorway?
Terry Kidd said | May 15th 2009 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
I do not see any ‘right’ in this situation for anyone involved. I take Steve’s original point that possibly nothing illegal occurred. I also understand that what the girl may have originally agreed to was overtaken by events. If the acts were one on one or maybe one on two or three, and the males were less mature and single, then I can understand that it may have been consensual.
For me the issue is ethics. It may have been legally ok but was it ethically ok? This is where Matthew Johns stands condemned as a father and husband he did not act ethically. As a mature senior member of a football team he did not give a lead to less mature members by acting ethically …. by the way, neither did Kimmorley who by his own admission saw what was happening and kept walking.
Footballers may be flattered by young girls attentions and from that gain a sense of ‘power’ over them, but with that sense of power must also come a sense of responsibility …. again, Matthew Johns fell short of the mark here.
Having said all that above I also feel sorry for Matthew Johns in that 7 years ago he has worked thru this issue with the police and his wife and family, obviously not an easy thing to do. It does not sit well with me that he, and his wife, and his kids, must now suffer trial by media.
Education programs are a waste of time. What we are talking about is developing matureity among players and asking them to be aware that with fame/power comes responsibility and increased attention. Maybe they all need to become fathers to daughters ….. that has a very stabilising effect on their consequent attitudes to women.
matta said | May 15th 2009 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
I don’t think anyone on The Roar has taken the moral high ground at all…. I dont think anyone here thinks the issue is group sex at all…
Two camps
1) those who take the players word – she was up for everything and asking for it.
2) those who take her word – she was up for some play time but not for 12 blokes and felt so powerless she couldn’t speak out.
I don’t know about other forums but to say those in camp 2 are ‘moral highgrounders’ is simplistic and more than a little sad.
Dan said | May 15th 2009 @ 12:47pm | Report comment
Matta,
Well said. Personally, even taking into account that she may have been a total trash-bag ditz (bragging to her work mates was just plain weird… how did four corners miss that?), it doesn’t alter the fact that this behaviour was out of line in the extreme. A large group of men getting into a group gang-bang with a 19yr old girl, even if she was willing, is totally irresponsible and stupid. I honestly don’t understand how any of them in that room with their d*cks out could have found the situation acceptable, let alone arousing!
Tom said | May 15th 2009 @ 12:50pm | Report comment
Good post Dan.
Terry Kidd said | May 15th 2009 @ 12:54pm | Report comment
Dan probably said it easier and clearer than me ….. it was stupid and ethically wrong ….. regardless of all else . Good post mate.
sledgeross said | May 15th 2009 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
Dan, Ive spent two days and numerous posts trying to articulate what you said in a few sentences! Well played Sir!
Epi said | May 15th 2009 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
6-10 guys standing around in a room masturbating with each other is just wrong – end of story.
The blokes just like to share a bun?? Good work fellas.
GaryGnu said | May 15th 2009 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
This whole affair stinks of double standards and hypocrisy. The NSW Supreme Court recently found 10 former members of the James Hardie board had breached the Corporations Act when carrying out their duties. It was then and only then that some of the directors, Meredith Hellicar and Peter Wilcox, stepped down from the boards of AMP and Telstra respectively.
If that is accepted in the genteel world of Corporate boards then why is Matthew Johns in particular being held to a higher standard of personal responsibility in having his career destroyed even though no charges have been laid after investigation let alone being found guilty in a court of law?
I acknowledge that the James Hardie case was a civil one and the investigation into the Christchurch incident was for an alleged criminal offence. However, the point about differing standards of personal responsibility still stands.
Is it because some find the acts that he is accused of, and admitted to, distasteful and a breach of their personal moral standards? If so, then I have no time for people who would impose their own standards on others. This is nothing but a hypocritical witch hunt.
If you don’t want your sons involved in a culture that is inclined to the sorts of activity referred to by Four Corners and others don’t let them join the military.
The other element of this affair that is very hard to understand is the suspension of time. This is an event that occurred seven years ago and people are questioning the culture of the game now. I stated on another thread that this is being played out in a parallel universe where nothing really happens until it happens on TV.
In between 2002 and now we had the cataclysmic events of Coffs Harbour in 2004 that made everyone sit up and take notice. Much hard work has gone into changing the culture of disrespect to women and cover up by officials. I have not seen that acknowledged anywhere except for the SMH.
Dario Simpatico said | May 15th 2009 @ 1:55pm | Report comment
Firstly, Sports players are cultural icons in Australia. You cannot ignore that fact. Society does not want our culture being defined by disreputable people. Remember that there were several stories on that 4corners program, and that there are dozens more circulating out there. This is not about 1 man, 1 woman, or one story.
Secondly, ‘Matty Johns’ is a brand. He has traded on this brand quite lucratively as a cultural icon, a good bloke, etc etc, and now this brand is in disrepute, it is suffering. This has less to do with any sort of crime and more to do with the general public who have bought into the brand and now have distaste at what that means, because for anyone who laughed at a Reg Reagan joke, or cheered Matty on in a game, the feeling is that we are complict in endorsing unethical behaviour. Because of this, the punishment may not fit the crime as a person, but Matty Johns is a brand, and as such he suffers the same social acceptance/rejection as other brands.
Furthermore, I have several friends who engage in group sex, I have several friends who are victims of sexual abuse… in some cases these are the same people… and I say this with all solemnity, I think this is one of the most irresponsible articles written on this forum. Unless you have spent time with victims of sexual abuse, and looked them in the eye and heard their story, I really can’t see where you get off writing so irresponsibly. This is not about some damaged woman in NZ, or some horny footyball players. This isn’t about sexual preference or fetish. This is about respect to our mothers, sisters and daughters. This respect starts at the top, with our cultural institutions, our icons and brands, and this article is a complete rejection of that and in general a disgrace. Pull your head it mate. Step away from the keyboard, go and spend some time with some victims of abuse and then come back and write something relevant. Is Matty Johns coping a heap at the moment… definitely… will he come out of it a better human being… only if we stop making excuses for his downfall.
GaryGnu said | May 15th 2009 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
Dario,
I disagree with your statement “This is not about 1 man, 1 woman, or one story”. The entire 4 Corners report hung on the fact that it contained an interview with a woman involved in a previous publicly known incident and she could name one of the men involved. The entire news value of the show was that one person could be named.
To couple this with some other previously reported incidents, and selectively quote from an education course created in reaction to many of those incidents to show that a culture of cover up and disrespect for women is alive and well is, in my opinion, irresponsible journalism. The offenders in all incidents cited after 2004 have been or are being publicly punished. There has been no cover up.
The culture that 4 Corners claimed is alive and well is being actively addressed by the NRL (and probably other codes) and that needs to be acknowledged.
macavity said | May 15th 2009 @ 2:44pm | Report comment
well, at least “clare” wasn’t a 13yo…
matta said | May 15th 2009 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
Dario, Well written.
I too have had close contact with someone who suffered from sexual abuse. An ex of mine had a guy force himself on her prior to our relationship. She never said ‘no’ because she shut down as a defense mechanism. It pretty much ruined her for years with the common blaming herself etc…
Now people can rightly say “how was Matty Johns and the boys to know she wasn’t up for it if she didn’t say so” its a grey area, no question. But why did Matty feel the need to step away and apologize to her afterward (his words)?
Also, re the co-workers statement. My ex would talk and laugh about her situation all the time…that is common for people hiding pain.
Dario SImpatico said | May 15th 2009 @ 3:13pm | Report comment
Garygnu
I agree with your assertion of the value of the 4corners report. The statement “This is not about 1 man, 1 woman, or one story” is in reference to the prolfieration of sexual abuse in our culture, that its not restricted to any single event or any single person, and that we can’t hold Matty Johns accountable as an individual for all and sundry. However as a ‘celebrity’ or ‘brand’ Matty Johns makes his bread off the back of public opinion. The detractors are right, in a sense, that he has committed no crime (that we know of). Public opinion is telling us that we don’t condone this behaviour, legal or illegal, perpetrated by anyone, let alone a visible cultural icon.
Confusing the arguement by picking apart media commentators and scrutinising the legal validity or hollowness of their arguements detracts from the real heart of the matter. Public opinion and cultural destiny. Matty Johns will serve his penance and (fingers crossed) could become a genuine positive in the future as a ‘pheonix-risen’ who’s seen the error of his ways, but we have to censor ourselves from offering him lifelines and easy out options or finding convaluted ways to defend him. Let the man reap what he has sown.
Nate Hornblower said | May 15th 2009 @ 3:13pm | Report comment
Your truly taking Miranda Devine’s comments out of context with your whole “yes might mean no later on”
In this situation, the girl consented to having sex with 2 blokes. She did not consent to have sex with with half the football team while the rest of them stood around watching and masturbating. She didn’t consent to them acting like animals, jumping through bathroom windows to get a look and cop a feel.
So Steve are you a father? Do you have a daughter? If the answer to those questions is YES, then how would you feel if this had happened to your daughter? If 7 years later she is still a wreck, suicidal and so angry still at these people, how as a father would that make you feel?
Personally I feel sorry for Matthew Johns but his employers still made the right choices, they had very little choice but to act they way they have. Johns shouldn’t have to bear the brunt of this fire storm alone….we know a good portion of the touring squad at the time were involved yet they all remain silent.
You had very little that was constructive to say and just want to get on with the footy, thank you for your pitiful addition to the public sphere on this issue.
ohtani's jacket said | May 15th 2009 @ 3:17pm | Report comment
Does anyone honestly believe that this wouldn’t have blown up in Johns’ face if the girl wasn’t distressed? High profile TV presenter cheats on wife during player sex romp. I don’t think group sex is the issue; when a guy like Johns ****s up, he ****ed up and that’s all there is to it.
All these people who are defending him, try using those defences on his wife, or your wife, partner, girlfriend… It was just group sex, honey. Totally consensual. Just me and a few of the boys. Y’know, a bit of bonding.
I’ll feel like a hypocrite when I have group sex with a rugby league team.
westy said | May 15th 2009 @ 4:19pm | Report comment
ohtani’s jacket I respect your rugby comments but I cannot wait for your comments on the Melbourne Aleague player who has allegedly sexually assaulted a 13 yearold girl. There is an article here just waiting for your comments. Zero so far.
You have no idea of how in Australia anyway this type of stuff degenerates into a wholescale attack not only on all professional league players but amateur rugby league players and then directly rugby league supporters in general.
The thing Australian rugby has never quite understood or accepted is that when the split occurred the bulk of amateur rugby players in Australia also went over to amateur rugby league.well before the advent of pokies. Over 90% of registered rugby league playes at junior and senior levels are amateur funded by registrations and local sponsors.
When rugby attacks it usually degenerates into a class attack. Mungoes and for the islander boys baboons.
Australian rugby never has been the game of choice of the ordinary man or women. It is obviously to complex for them.
Australian rugby suffers one salient defect a residual dislike/hatred not well articulated but real across the working class in general. it is not their game and has very little liklihood of ever being so.
I personally think this does not have to be the case but of all the codes it has this image problem no other and it now hurts us.
My experience is one of patronising platitudes with very little action on the ground
We have not had a team in Western sydney that our best juniors have played for since the 70’s and 80’s in the days of Price/Leeds/Melrose. We never play with our best they play league or with other clubs. .
The reality for me is that if league falters in Australia it will be a pyrrhic victory for rugby their juniors will most likely flow elsewhere.
Have a look at the administration of ARU its like picking which elite private shool did you go to. No connection no understanding. It is not all doom and gloom in Western Sydney but unless Australian rugby provides a team for them to do battle with against the forces of perceived “oppression” they will lose the entire region as they have nearly already done.
Problem is its half of NZ.
Sorry listened to some jerk on radio who equated Johns behaviour with standards in certain areas. Way to go.
Sydney Morning Herald is more accurately Eastern Sydney news and seem to determine the attitude of their subsidiary ABC’s 2BL.
znotty said | May 15th 2009 @ 4:50pm | Report comment
Pull up folks if a bloke sexually assaults a 13 year old girl he`s not a sportsman he`s a criminal & that has nothing to do with sport,the issue is not the sexual attitude of players to children that is not in the frame at all….anyone see Preston Cambell reject any involvement proving why the others should be named ,the mud is flying in all directions & Preston shouldn`t have to answer for anything..name the bastards.
Rabbitz said | May 15th 2009 @ 6:17pm | Report comment
Can someone explain why it is up to the NRL and the Rugby League Football clubs to educate the players on morals, alcohol, drugs (ad infinitum)?
Firstly, why woere they not taught such lessons, by parents, family, school (church etc etc etc)? Especially parents.
Next, If my employer wanted to regulate my drinking and social life, outside of work hours, then they would find it hard to convince me that they even came close to having the right to even consider it.
Finally, and this is going off on a tangent, what made the morons who decided to “climb in through the window” to join in decide that this was acceptable? In my mind it makes me think that this was not an isolated incident.
Also, where can I find out who were in the squad that weekend…Surely someone must have a “Big League” from 2002 laying around. Having heard the stories, just about every one of the squad members must have been implicated…
DaniE said | May 15th 2009 @ 6:30pm | Report comment
One thing I wonder about if whether the other players also had wives, or serious relationships… in which case it was more than just Matthew Johns being unfaithful. I daresay now there are other family relationships right now within the team who are in strife because of the actions during that night. The issue isn’t just about sex or players being role models to the wider community – but how about the way they regard their other relationships as well. Their ability to see beyond the moment, exert self-control, and to think of others. The fact that so many participated without thinking of the consequences makes me think it’s a wider problem for the club and the players.
Billo said | May 15th 2009 @ 7:51pm | Report comment
Steve,
Probably the best article relating to this issue I’ve read.
If I were the editor of the SMH or Telegraph I’d want you on the payroll to give a more balanced view than some of the writers on those newspapers.
Players’ morals are their own business, and that of their wives and families, unless and until they infringe the law, at which point they become a matter for the courts.
But to make generalizations about any sport on the basis of a limited number of incidents that are blasted in the newspapers is ridiculous.
ohtani's jacket said | May 15th 2009 @ 7:55pm | Report comment
Westy, I’m not having a go at league. I’d feel the same way if it was a rugby player/team, and obviously if this footballer is found guilty he’s in a lot more shit than Matthew Johns.
I dunno why people are rushing to defend league. It’s not like these players have been wrongfully accused. People are so worried about their code being harmed that they get defensive, but I don’t get this player-victim mentality. If guys are worried about their image, they ought to clean it up. And if it’s casting a bad light on everyone — seniors, juniors, clubs, communities, whoever — then the NRL administrators need to be more severe. Because like or not, the only time the media will turn a blindeye to a sex scandal is when it a) slips through the cracks or b) goes high up.
Johns screwed up. On what possible grounds can you defend him? People talk about a witch hunt and trial by media, but hello, what kind of a defence is that?
znotty said | May 15th 2009 @ 9:25pm | Report comment
the Dragons Bulldogs game has just finished & how poor is the coverage,how annoying is Gould,how predictable is Warren & will someone PLEASE tell Peter Sterling a stanza is ” a division of a poem consisting of a series of lines arranged together in a usually recurring pattern of meter and rhyme ” & has nothing to do with a half of football.
Dragons were nearly robbed Ben Creagh scored a fair try in the first half that was disallowed.
Deano said | May 15th 2009 @ 10:39pm | Report comment
You have had a sheltered life Tomm
Russell Bussian said | May 15th 2009 @ 11:52pm | Report comment
Top article Steve. Best I’ve read on the matter. This is becoming a modern day witch hunt.
I would imagine many of the women who choose to engage in such group sex may already be suffering from low self esteem and personality/psychological problems. I have heard people say ‘the mad ones are the best in bed’. To what extent are their problems such as attempted suicide, depression, failing studies etc a result of the “sexual abuse” or “degradation” and to what extent are they merely behavioural patterns consistent with someone who chooses to have group sex with footballers? How do we know this ‘Clare’ wouldn’t have had the same problems had she not had the group sex? ie did the incident cause these problems in her life?
Legend has it there was some guy at the gay mardi gras who would lie in the urinal wanting men to urinate on him. Many people pay prostitutes to tie them up and whip them. Some people do crazy things. Some might regret them later some may not. Too many judgemental people in the world at the moment.
And to preempt personal questions that will be asked by people wanting to feel better about themselves yes I have a daughter and yes I am happily married in a monogamous relationship. If my daughter or son chooses to engage in intercourse with a dozen men I simply ask that they use a condom.
James said | May 15th 2009 @ 11:54pm | Report comment
Steve Kaless: hit the nail on the head.
Nate Hornblower, how do you know what she did and did not consent to? Maybe she did only consent to two, which leaves anyone else who had sex up for rape, and anyone else who flogged off watching facing charges of an act of indecency.
But because you and I don’t know the real story, *maybe* the story is that she was up for the whole lot of them. Certainly the police investigating it didn’t think that lack of consent could get off the ground, so what are you really basing your assumption on?
On what she said? Why should we assume that it is accurate? Why shouldn’t we consider the possibility that her recollection has been coloured by her subsequent shame and self loathing, and need to cast her herself as an innocent who was taken advantage of?
Just do us all a favour, and think beyond the version of events that people pushing agendas want you to swallow. As Chuck D said: don’t believe the hype!
davido said | May 16th 2009 @ 6:31am | Report comment
Wow. Quite a response. Which probably explains the media attention.
A high profile player who is now a commentator and a sex scandal – bound to hit the headlines. I only wonder why it took so long!
I think this piece was superbly written and I agree with a lot of it. I am quite happy to keep it a moral debate.
What I really hate are articles like this… http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2009/05/15/1242335882833.html
the subtext of which seems to be saying that ‘while it wasnt rape technically by the law it still was rape’.
To my mind it needs to be clear that if a person has not been charged let alone convicted then they are innocent under the law.
Lets keep this a moral debate.
TOM- I dont know where you have been but I cant remember too many vulnerable or naive 19 year olds girls when I was that age.
Quite the reverse actually.
Anyway… thanks to theroar.com.au again for allowing an indepth debate!
challa said | May 16th 2009 @ 6:42am | Report comment
‘Dan White, the executive director of 147 Catholic schools in the Sydney archdiocese, a traditional nursery for the game, said serious misgivings were held over the Four Corners exposé of systemic mistreatment of women.’
This is a joke right? After all the physical and sexual child abuse that the catholic schools have handed out over the years? They make me sick.
joeb said | May 16th 2009 @ 6:44am | Report comment
“Meanwhile another claim about the past of the woman [Clare] at the centre of the scandal have been reported. Seven News reports “Clare” once had sex with two rugby union players in a nightclub toilet. It’s the latest in a series of sordid claims related to the woman.”
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/814419/more-sharks-players-named-in-scandal
DAVID RUTHERFORD said | May 16th 2009 @ 8:18am | Report comment
Congratulations Steve on an excellent and brave article. I basically agree with everything you say but I would like to offer a slightly different emphasis. It is a great pity that the mass media do not handle these issues with more balance and less pandering to religious and left-wing feminist ideologues but what’s new. If we are really serous about protecting the rights and welfare of female group sex participants we should respect and accept their sexual preferences and lifestyle choices and their abilities in general to stand up for their own rights in these situations. The way many people are reacting to all this implies that women and young people are ignorant, brainless doormats totally incapable of knowing who they are and what they want and expressing their wishes. Unfortunately this assumption seems to be partly correct in the case of the selfish, grossly irresponsible, viscous, vindictive and destructive young woman at the center of this latest scandal but in most cases these assumptions are not correct. She should be brave enough and have the conviction of her morals and the validity of her case to identify herself and take full responsibility for her actions. Some young rape victims have so why can’t she do the same? When are players going to unite and stand up for themselves about the violation of their civil liberties particularly in relation to their freedom of sexual preference and lifestyle. It’s group sex now but how soon before its gay, anal, oral or premarital sex which are persecuted? Where could it all end? Once again big business and their supporting institutions like the media, politicians and organized religion are exploiting and suppressing the rights of working class people. I’m all for a good comprehensive sex education in the school system and for adults to help people handle these activities and life better but whose beliefs, values and morals are we going to teach or preach? The public debate is good but it is a great pity that at the beginning of the twenty first century a lot more people are not adopting a less hypocritical and more just, humane, enlightened, practical, realistic and tolerant approach.
Russell Bussian said | May 16th 2009 @ 9:14am | Report comment
I am surprised at the *outrage* that no other players who were in the Christchurch hotel room have come forward. Put yourself in the shoes of one of those players.
Let’s see now, there’s a psycho chick in NZ who wants to destory my life and would shoot me if she had a gun. My name will be splashed accross every front page for my family to read and be humiliated by. I will be called every name under the sun by a public completely unaware of the true facts. My current wife or partner will be humiliated as well after the over-the-top character assasination I will surely receive. And the upside is…
Wow that’s a tough choice to make.
And to the idiot who criticised Steve for saying bring on this week’s football. What do you want to happen? Cancel this week’s games so we can talk even more about a girl who regrets having sex with a bunch of footballers seven years ago?
westy said | May 16th 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
The Sargeant Shultz respose is probably safest ” I see Nothinnnng ”
Loved some bloke from the Catholic Education Office saying that if this conduct continued they would have to reconsider rugby league’s connection with catholic schools. Buffoon ………am I suppose to resond by translating the outrageous acts of sexual assault and rape of minors by some Catholic priests and religous staff to all Catholic priests and religous staff in Catholic schools. because if I am according to this buffoon logic they will not have many students
Russell Bussian said | May 16th 2009 @ 9:38am | Report comment
I feel sorry for the Newcastle U20s player who was hammered from pillar to post for saying if you are nice to the girl, thank her & put her in a cab then that can ‘cover it up’. When he says cover it up I think he means pretend you respect the girl when you really think she is a slut. I think he is right. If you listen to ‘Clare’ her main gripe seemed to be the lack of respect shown to her by the players and how they didn’t talk to her and it all ended without any fanfare. From my experience women view sex differently to men. It is not just about the physical act but also how the experience makes them feel. They like to feel wanted/appreciated/desired. Had the young bloke been there with his nice chat, thankyou & here’s the cab fare I daresay ‘Clare’ would have felt better about herself.
Albert Ross said | May 16th 2009 @ 10:17am | Report comment
There are reports of “gang bangs” having been a popular pastime in Australia at least since the start of European arrivals. Not just in Australia though indulges in this pursuit. In Japan for example Bukkake is I believe not unpopular.
The activity has been a part of surfing and the rock music subcultures.
It has been suggested that gang banging is strongly associated with working class culture and social deprivation. However, in south east Queensland in the 60s and 70s “sugar trains” were a feature of parties thrown by private school pupils and old boys. “Toot toot” was the signal that something was on in a room or shed or “shaggin waggon” . Many currently prominent and very upright Queenslanders and their spouses were part of this scene to my certain knowledge.
It’s a dismal history and all that has changed is that we are now talking about it.
St Paul got it about right… “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.“
sunshinecoaster said | May 16th 2009 @ 11:10am | Report comment
You can spin it anyway you like,there not breaking laws etc but lets remember these cases are not just gang bangs
We all know the cases being talked about,the cases making the news are the reason Rugby League is taking the hits,the bottom line is that it seems to be more endemic in the code of League
I know see some of what your saying though,theres seedy stuff going on everywhere and hey thats just life,but when people start becoming hurt by these actions thats where the line has been crossed.The Sharks incident is an example of something that had snowballed out of control,Matty Johns would not have said sorry in the car park if it had just been a “gang bang”,
I hate the word role model too,because it can come down to everything including the music they listen to and what they like doing there private time,but i do think if a player is representing a professional code he has to at least act like a decent human being.
Most people are not asking for them to be role models,most people could not care less if they want to swap there wives and girl friends and have gang bangs,people are just sick to death of seeing young girls crying and shaking on news items about bloody footballers treating them like cattle,it just seems way to accepted in the code.
Tom said | May 16th 2009 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
Davido-
‘TOM- I dont know where you have been but I cant remember too many vulnerable or naive 19 year olds girls when I was that age.
Quite the reverse actually.’
Are you serious? You don’t think 19 year old girls are vulnerable around 30 year old athletes?
What’s the reverse? You think they’re predatory?
I have to say, there are some attitudes seeping out of people’s comments on this thread that really worry me.
I don’t think I have lived a sheltered life, Deano. I’ve seen some friends of mine do some pretty rubbish things to women. And it made me angry then like this makes me angry now.
westy said | May 16th 2009 @ 1:55pm | Report comment
And tom did you report them to the police or take a snapshot and sell it to the papers?
westy said | May 16th 2009 @ 2:29pm | Report comment
sunshinecoaster from my experience over now 45 years in both rugby union and rugbyleague I would suggest thet rugby league has probably on average taken on more damaged individuals in their code than rugby has or has had to do.
It has some times provided a or career oppotunity when very little else was on offer.
this is not offered as an excuse for inexcusable behaviour simply an observation. They have done some good things in providing discipline and gaols to some pretty wayward youths some of whom were not exactly regulars at school , low expectations,lowincome and educational backgrounds and have also suffered from their failures with the same wayward youngsters. o’neill was raised by his grandmother from a broken home with a serious drinking problem at 18 that not only bennett could guide, Carney.s father served time for serious violence and was also an alcholic. He was raised by his mother in Goulbourn. he was basically banned from his home town.
It is NSWRL and NSW touch football who run programmes with and arrange some games for inmates in prison. they get little cudos for this work. It is obviously not the thing for mainstream media.
The individuals who transgress deserve condemnation for their conduct but it is rugby league in my experience that more often than rugby offers these individuals a game and a chance. It does payoff for many but it costs the game dearly when they hang on too long to these problem individuals. If they have allowed a bad culture in relation to women gross to develop it must be condemned but I know many in this game have done sterling and unheralded work for their communities.
They are at times their own worst enemy but I am very suspicious of the populous motives of some who launch into a generalised attack on a game and its supporters they no little about . If they were black you could identify the cause but as an Australian raised on the fair go conept I baulk at times to what degenerates into class prejudice.
JimC said | May 16th 2009 @ 4:42pm | Report comment
Steve – The best article written on the issue. Common sense like this will get you nowhere!
Obviously it conflicts with annual league bashing season which is in full swing…..
Alex said | May 16th 2009 @ 5:06pm | Report comment
I agree that a moral code should not be enshrined in law. Laws are there to spell out clearly what we all should know – the don’ts, and not so much the do’s. Having said that, I think this piece is rather naive and another attempt by a sports journalist to sweep the issue under the carpet. The line near the end of the article telling women to just “knee them in the balls” shows a total lack of understanding about the situation of a group of footy players and a vulnerable woman. “Now bring on the footy” simply means ‘get over it, it happens and it’s OK’. As long as this attitude prevails, we are going to have many young and talented sports people and others making terrible decisions that haunt them for years. You can get back to the footy, Steve, but that might not be so easy for those involved in this incident. You hear that famous line from the movie Old School all the time, “Everyone’s doing it.” It is the cry of the weak willed and those of low self-esteem. I think you will find that they are the types of people caught up in these degrading acts.
There should be more people in administration and especially the media that are willing to say the hard things in order to encourage the young and impressionable to behave in a way that respects others.
davido said | May 16th 2009 @ 11:19pm | Report comment
Tom – You don’t think 19 year old girls are vulnerable around 30 year old athletes?
No i dont.