Playing along with the role model myth
Roar Guru By Phil Quin, 13 Jan 2011 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- AFL, Ben Cousins, Brendan Fevola, Nick Riewoldt, role models, sex scandal, St Kilda, St Kilda Saints
Related coverage
Building a positive reputation among women and creating a “family-friendly culture” is an understandable obsession within all major sporting codes, none more so than the AFL.
Female support is obviously pivotal to its success – from filling grandstands to driving TV ratings, to ensuring that current and future Mums encourage their kids on to the footy field to start with.
This fear of alienating women translates into hypersensitivity about player misconduct because the blokes in charge of footy clubs are convinced that women (mothers especially) want footballers to act as ‘role models’.
This is the logic: while men understand that “boys will be boys”, women are quickly turned off by the kind of debauched behaviour that is otherwise typical in red-blooded males of that age and stage: alcohol and drug abuse, gambling, imaginative sexual antics, and general skylarking.
The media play along, too. What else can explain the extraordinary reaction to the otherwise entirely predictable arrest of Brendan Fevola for New Year’s Eve drunkenness?
Brendan Fevola once told me he was such an old hand with reporters that he felt he could safely opt out of the media training session I was running for Carlton players at the time. As I wrote here, he proceeded to act in ways that make the recent incident seem tame.
Or how about the hysterical response to the unsurprising revelation that footy players sometimes have sex with teenage girls; that sex sometimes leads to pregnancy; or that the women involved often feel (justifiably) used and resentful as a result?
The St Kilda nude photo scandal was a great example of the extreme dissonance between private knowledge and public mores when it comes to off-field conduct. The entire saga only reached such dramatic heights out of a collective willingness to feign shock.
This perception of “what women want” sets the bar impossibly high, but every single club plays along by promoting expectations of player conduct that they are bound not to reach.
In their heart of hearts, of course, clubs also know this so they engage in harm minimisation to bridge the gap between perception and reality. In public, they profess outrage at player antics, but behind the scenes, desperately scramble to keep it under wraps, mostly with success.
The truth is that the sporting public has a very good idea what goes on behind the scenes of a footy club. Most sensible adults of either gender are well aware that young, prematurely rich and hopelessly unworldly sportsmen will behave badly.
But, like the clubs and the media, we adopt a posture of moral panic: tut-tutting on cue and pretending to be horrified when it turns out that Fevola is an obnoxious drunk, Riewoldt got snapped in the buff, or Cousins likes to party.
We are in on the ‘role model’ scam. It suits everyone, ourselves included, to play along.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- AFL, Ben Cousins, Brendan Fevola, Nick Riewoldt, role models, sex scandal, St Kilda, St Kilda Saints
January 13th 2011 @ 5:14am
Dan of Sans Souci said | January 13th 2011 @ 5:14am | Report comment
The St Kilda nude photo scandal begins with AFL players at a school clinic. That is why it is relevant and not blown out of proportion.
January 13th 2011 @ 7:12am
Redb said | January 13th 2011 @ 7:12am | Report comment
That is disputed unless you beleive everything the girl in question says, like how she took the photos of Reiwoldt,etc.
nice try.
January 13th 2011 @ 7:54am
Dan of Sans Souci said | January 13th 2011 @ 7:54am | Report comment
Well “disputed” is reasonable enough to justify the media looking at it. It’s not a case of no reporting until the AFL or its players are confirmed to have done something wrong. Visits of young men to schools must be heavily scrutinized and controlled.
January 13th 2011 @ 8:46am
amazonfan said | January 13th 2011 @ 8:46am | Report comment
The police investigated, and found no evidence that the players had done so. The players broke no laws. As such, I think it was blown out of proportion.
January 14th 2011 @ 3:55am
db swannie said | January 14th 2011 @ 3:55am | Report comment
Is this the same investigation where it has been said that the girl was getting her answers from a St kilda official via phone…?A question that is continually asked of the police & AFL & the only answer is deafening silence.
A police investigation in Victoria seems to be a little different to other interview/investigations in Australia..especially if it involves AFL players.
Could have something to do with the cosy deal/arrangement between the two.
January 14th 2011 @ 12:17pm
Redb said | January 14th 2011 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
you are just parroting spit ball questions from Hinch.
Hinch has since discovered she has lied about the photos and cant understand why she should would do that.
The MOU covered a range of matters between Vic Police and the AFL , like gambling, match fixing (something the NRL has had allegations of). The intent was fine.
The conspiracy theories and generalisations make great reading though.
January 15th 2011 @ 5:55am
amazonfan said | January 15th 2011 @ 5:55am | Report comment
You’re obsessed. You will never acknowledge the players did nothing legally wrong, because then that will ruin your ‘AFL=bad, NRL=good’ fantasy.
Let me make this clear. In Victoria, it is perfectly legal for a person over the age of 18 to have sex with a person under the age of 18 (but over the age of 16) as long as the older partner is not in a position of authority. There was some concern that the players had met the girl at the school clinic, because it could be argued that the players were in a position of authority, although that is perhaps unlikely. However it was determined that the players had not done so. They have no legal case to answer as they broke no laws.
Furthermore, it is perfectly clear that the only reason you care is because the guys involved are AFL players. If they were non-athletes, or NRL players, I doubt you would care much at all.
January 21st 2011 @ 8:43pm
Redb said | January 21st 2011 @ 8:43pm | Report comment
As pointed out this was disputed, but no more. The girl has admitted she lied about the school visit being first contact as well !!
January 13th 2011 @ 6:44am
Anthony said | January 13th 2011 @ 6:44am | Report comment
Phil you seem like just another AFL apologist. It seems to me that in certain sports boys behaving badly is more prevalent then others. There is no moral panic with Fevola being a serial drunk , but more with him , allegedly exposing himself or taking pictures of a naked girl in the shower that some how made it to many “AFL family members phones”, and that Riewoldt got snapped in the buff somehow accidentally is crap. The picture of him posing naked with Zac Dawson practically holding his manhood just goes to show that at St Kilda there is a very strange environment (To me the picture looked like it should be in a gay magazine, but that is my opinion and a picture tells a thousand words, and not to say there is anything wrong with that). Cousins didn’t just like to party but is a self confessed drug addict with a addiction lasting almost as long as his AFL carrier, Which just goes to prove how successful the AFL’s so called drug policy is. I think you have missed the point, The AFL spews out rubbish about how wonderfully well it respects woman and then when a 16 year old girl is taken advantage of by AFL footballers they try to hide it as best they can. I am just sick of the crap coming from the AFL and all its little parrots in the media. Lets look at AFL legends like Wayne Carey, Ablet Senior , complete wankers held in the highest regard in AFL. circles. Just shows where the AFL is really at. To be honest I don’t care but don’t pee down my back and tell me it’s raining. The truth is there for all to see.
January 14th 2011 @ 12:19pm
Redb said | January 14th 2011 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
AFL legends also include James Hird, Nathan Buckley, Robert Harvey, etc.
Tarring all AFL players with the same brush is easy.
January 15th 2011 @ 6:22pm
AngrySeahorse said | January 15th 2011 @ 6:22pm | Report comment
Well said Anthony.
January 13th 2011 @ 7:36am
MyLeftFoot said | January 13th 2011 @ 7:36am | Report comment
Phil
interesting perspective.
Allow me to also add that we know the AFL pre-season is on when the first stoush amongs team mates is reproted:
http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/north-melbourne-skipper-brent-harvey-and-teammate-daniel-pratt-turn-boxing-kangaroos-at-training/story-e6frf33l-1225986870310?from=public_rss
At least Harvey has avoided a boot up his backside.
January 13th 2011 @ 7:48am
Redb said | January 13th 2011 @ 7:48am | Report comment
Boomer is an angry little ant.
January 13th 2011 @ 8:49am
amazonfan said | January 13th 2011 @ 8:49am | Report comment
I remember when it happened at Carlton (last year?) and Caroline Wilson wrote an absurd article in which she referred to it as one of the lowest points in Carlton’s history!
January 13th 2011 @ 10:05am
Redb said | January 13th 2011 @ 10:05am | Report comment
it was a low blow.
January 13th 2011 @ 10:10am
amazonfan said | January 13th 2011 @ 10:10am | Report comment
Good one!
January 13th 2011 @ 10:55am
Rob McLean said | January 13th 2011 @ 10:55am | Report comment
Ahhhh Caroline Wilson. And people claim reporters with NRL backgrounds don’t put the boot into the AFL and its culture…..
January 13th 2011 @ 2:21pm
Redb said | January 13th 2011 @ 2:21pm | Report comment
Agree.
January 13th 2011 @ 9:40am
Mark Young said | January 13th 2011 @ 9:40am | Report comment
Hi Phil
Are you trying to suggest that blokes are all cool with the antics of Fevola and the entire St Kilda- pregnant school girl fiasco, and the only reason its an issue becuase of women’s reactions to them?
(RedB this isn’t a code war comment, I also find Hopoate, Monaghan etc equally nauseating)
January 13th 2011 @ 9:51am
MyLeftFoot said | January 13th 2011 @ 9:51am | Report comment
Yes, Phil’s view here can only be considered ok to a certain degree.
There definitely are limits, beyond which most will resile against.
The St Kilda players definitely breached the threshold of generally accepted behaviour, what’s more, we now have a couple of years of serious transgressions, so we reach a point where the club as a whole must be viewed as being culpable.
With Fev, well, it’s a long list of idiocies from someone who lacks intelligence and self-awareness – but I’m not sure if anything he did ever breached the threshold – it’s just that there was a lot knocking on the door and he became an easy target for a story, e.g. being raucous on new years eve.
January 13th 2011 @ 10:01am
Redb said | January 13th 2011 @ 10:01am | Report comment
Mark,
I suggest you read this:
http://www.theroar.com.au/2010/10/15/is-it-wise-to-unleash-fevola-on-the-chinese/
Should give you a fair idea of what I think of Fevola.
The St Kilda photos scandal is a complex issue which I’ve commented on elsewhere and have found pointed the finger directly at Sam Gilbert. The school visit comment above is code war rubbish, it is highly disputed.
January 13th 2011 @ 10:10am
Dan of Sans Souci said | January 13th 2011 @ 10:10am | Report comment
The fact it is “highly disputed” is reason itself that it be examined by the media. That is self evident especially when referring to a visit by men to a school.
January 13th 2011 @ 10:17am
amazonfan said | January 13th 2011 @ 10:17am | Report comment
Except it’s not “highly disputed” as it almost certainly did not happen that way. As I noted in my post above, the police investigated and determined that the players did nothing wrong. No laws were broken; that is NOT in dispute.
January 13th 2011 @ 10:30am
Dan of Sans Souci said | January 13th 2011 @ 10:30am | Report comment
The media don’t investiage just when laws are seemingly broken. Were the AFL’s own policy’s broken? Was community moral expectation broken? Were the expectations of parents broken? Hiding behind “there were no laws broken…nothing to see here” might convince those wanting to be convinced, but it won’t convince the community as a whole.
January 13th 2011 @ 10:43am
amazonfan said | January 13th 2011 @ 10:43am | Report comment
Well, the fact that no laws were broken is arguably the most relevant part of it.
“Were the AFL’s own policy’s broken?”
I don’t recall the AFL having any policy governing what players do in their private sexual lives.
“Was community moral expectation broken?”
Subjective, and irrelevant.
“Were the expectations of parents broken?”
If the parents don’t like it, they should also speak to their daughters and advise them it’s not a good idea. The girl consented; she is no innocent victim.
January 13th 2011 @ 10:30am
Redb said | January 13th 2011 @ 10:30am | Report comment
Well Dan,
you need to keep up. It was investigated by the Police and the AFL, the media reported on it at the time.
The girl claims the school visit kicked it off, the player says it was after the Sydney game. This all came to light early this year.
The girl persists with the ‘we exchanged numbers’ they said “Ok your 16 its legal” This is her version and like with the photos it is contentious.
Now you might remember on this very site when the photos emerged some posters straight out beleived she took the photos of Reiwoldt,etc. “What is she doing in a room with 3 blokes, etc” It has turned out to be a lie!
The girl has a media manager has since released a photo of herself half naked and pregnant in surprise surprise St Kilda shorts. Not all is to be beleived.
I’d be sacking Sam Gilbert if I was St kilda but perhaps on legal advice it is the wrong thing to do in the short term.
January 13th 2011 @ 10:34am
Dan of Sans Souci said | January 13th 2011 @ 10:34am | Report comment
“The girl claims the school visit kicked it off, the player says it was after the Sydney game” Well there you have it. A 16 year old Melbourne school girl just out of the blue happens to turn up outside the change rooms in Sydney and two of the St Kilda players jsut happen to recall her from a school clinic. Believe what you want but there is enough there to warrant examination by a media that was not a nodding dog to the AFL.
January 13th 2011 @ 10:45am
amazonfan said | January 13th 2011 @ 10:45am | Report comment
Perhaps the reason the media didn’t examine it further is that for the first time in its existence, the media minded its own business. They recognized that no laws were broken, and that it was a private matter, and so they stepped back.
January 13th 2011 @ 11:20am
Mark Young said | January 13th 2011 @ 11:20am | Report comment
With respect, it is flat wrong to suggest that the hysterical reaction to the player misbehaviour across the codes is due to them trying to appease women, who find it disgusting while men understand that ‘boys will be boys’.
The reason there is a harsh reaction is not because we are trying to appease women, it is because public standards don’t tolerate this sort of crap.
Anyone who gets a school girl, not a teenager, a school girl pregnant, and then turfs her after she miscarriages is not ‘boys will be boys’ they are scumbags. Just like people who perform sex acts with dogs, assault police and resist arrest.
And on your wider issue yes, they are role models and should act accordingly.
If they don’t want to be role models they can head off into the bush away from the prying eyes of the media AND the weight of expectation from being a hero and idol to thousands of kids and sportsfan AND the enormous salary they get in return.
January 13th 2011 @ 10:14am
Rich_daddy said | January 13th 2011 @ 10:14am | Report comment
Phil,
I agree with your sentiments that there is too much emphasis on sports players being role models. If you require a sports star as a role model to base your lifestyle, values etc on, then you are seriously misguided. Parents expect everyone and everything to be positive role models for their children, but do they ever stop to look at themselves? Parents are the biggest and most prominent influence on children. They can discourage their kids from following anti-social behaviour exhibited by sports stars. That is of course if they don’t exhibit antisocial behaviour themselves.
However in saying all that, whether they like or not sports stars (particularly AFL) are public figures. They regularly engage with the community (which they should do) and the commercial sponsors (that to a certain extent pay their salaries), are vigilant about how they are perceived in the community. This is based around which organisations they associate with. Clubs are in turn wary of any incidents that may affect their sponsorship and consequently their bottom-line. Players like Fevola who commit the same offences time and time again leave clubs little choice in the commercial age. In addition, is it really too much to expect that players behave themselves and follow the law, an expectation for the rest of the society?
The basic problem is that players have too much money and time on their hands. If I was in charge, I would make it mandatory for every player on the list to be enrolled in some sort educational study (Uni, TAFE etc). This would give something else to do, and keep them in touch with the real world and life after sport.
January 13th 2011 @ 10:22am
amazonfan said | January 13th 2011 @ 10:22am | Report comment
I don’t think either Fevola or the St Kilda players breached any threshold.
Regarding Fevola, I think he’s an absolute idiot, and the fact that he is yet to act his age is astounding. However, I don’t think any of his single acts were particularly bad. I also think the media reaction to him has been dreadful and was an absolute indictment on the media, and I hate the fact that some people are portaying him as the Australian Michael Vick. I was incredibly unimpressed when Phil Clearly, and others, attempted to portray the Lara Bingle episode as some kind of disrespect towards women. The AFL’s involvement in that episode, as well as some of their comments about Fevola recently, not to mention some of the comments made by Michael Voss have also annoyed me.
As for the St Kilda players, I’ve addressed it in other threads, however I will simply say that as it is legal what they did, and since numerous 20+ year-olds sleep with (and in some cases impregnate) 16/17 year-old girls, I may not think it’s particularly wise, however I don’t think it crossed any line of decency or morality.
January 18th 2011 @ 12:43pm
Jaredsbro said | January 18th 2011 @ 12:43pm | Report comment
Not good enough. It’s legal to kill game at the appropriate time and place but many see it as environmentally or socially unacceptable to do so, and let’s not go into various racist laws which allowed at various times people the chance to discriminate or even to lynch those of a difference skin colour etc.
There are certainities about all of these cases, one is that sportsmen particularly (but women tennis players have been known to commit these kinds of issues at times) are media/public figures. And two whether we like or not (whether it’s fair or not) they are held to a different standard (not legally thank god) but socially and culturally. There are our heroes and their actions off the field are frequently painted as heroic whether that’s entirely appropriate or not. And what do heroes do exactly in this day and age? They don’t fight Hydras! They represent (becoming objects even of identification for) their fans in virtually everything they do (think British tabloids treatment of Soccer stars) in the mundane things and their private liasons.
Legality shouldn’t really come into the discussion at all for a hero, unless it does and they ought to face the consequences of their actions. But the assumption should be that they are law-abiding citizens. As players that follow (sometimes) the laws of their respective games, it is right to expect these ‘upstanding citizens’ to not only follow the laws of the land, but act as guides about how to go about doing that and why others should also and the fact that they will be rewarded for doing that. This perhaps idealistic standard for them to follow is probably too high a standard for some to live, work and play, but it doesn’t seem to be a problem for everyone.
January 13th 2011 @ 11:21am
Richard said | January 13th 2011 @ 11:21am | Report comment
I agree that it is a lot to ask of young men in a testosterone charged male environment to display maturity and behave responsibly when they are still young and unworldly. But that’s the price they pay for success, for fame, and for riches. It is a lot to ask, but it is not too much. Their behaviour is one of the influences that sets the tone for our society, precisely because they are in the public eye, precisely because we admire them and cheer them on as they go about their work. The standards our society finds acceptable is the main thing, but there are other more mercenary considerations, like club image, sport image and the image of the sponsor. A lot to ask, yes. Too much, no. Its not enough that young men can play footy when they represent the AFL these days. They have to be good citizens too. The AFL has great programs to help them succeed there. For those who persist in failing on that score, there is justifiably the door.
January 13th 2011 @ 7:00pm
Tortion said | January 13th 2011 @ 7:00pm | Report comment
We should take a leaf out of the UKs book and accept that footballers are generally scum and you can’t expect anything good from them beyond their skills on the pitch.
January 14th 2011 @ 12:25am
amazonfan said | January 14th 2011 @ 12:25am | Report comment
I prefer to believe that most people are fundamentally good. Footballers represent society; whatever footballers get up to, there are plenty of non-footballers who get up to similar things.
January 18th 2011 @ 12:50pm
Jaredsbro said | January 18th 2011 @ 12:50pm | Report comment
But either way you can’t excuse them because other people do worse than what they do. As I’ve said a few times and as Richard’s also said sportspeople are not just ‘citizens’ of the land in which they reside, they are also members of a certain culture and quite frequently some sub-cultures or social groups on the side. As a citizen they must follow the laws of the land and as a member of their culture they must respect (even if they don’t agree with) the conventions that their culture has agreed upon (and which they have inherited) above and beyond the law.
January 14th 2011 @ 3:49am
db swannie said | January 14th 2011 @ 3:49am | Report comment
Why do AFL fans continually ignore the fact that the players involved BROKE the AFLs Code of Conduct…& should be punished..
http://www.afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_docs/afl_hq/Policies/AFL_Member_Protection_Policy_2009.pdf
5. Policy Statements
5.1 CHILD PROTECTION POLICY
(a) Overview
Every person and organisation bound by this policy must always place the
safety and welfare of children above all other considerations.
Child abuse is illegal in all states and territories of Australia, with each
having their own child protection laws that cover the reporting and
investigation of cases of child abuse.
Child abuse relates to children (a person under 18 years old) at risk of
harm, usually by adults, sometimes by other children, and often by those
they know and trust. It can take many forms. Children may be harmed by
verbal and emotional abuse and physical actions and by people failing to
provide them with basic care. Child abuse may include:
• Physical abuse by hurting a child or a child’s development (e.g.
hitting, shaking or other physical harm; giving a child alcohol or
drugs; or training that exceeds the child’s development or maturity).
• Sexual abuse by adults or other children where a child is
encouraged or forced to watch or engage in sexual activity or where
a child is subject to any other inappropriate conduct of a sexual
nature (e.g. sexual intercourse, masturbation, oral sex, pornography
including child pornography or inappropriate touching or
conversations).
January 14th 2011 @ 5:28am
amazonfan said | January 14th 2011 @ 5:28am | Report comment
Because she is over the age of consent. Sexual intercourse is only relevant if she can not consent. She can consent, and did so.
Why should the players be punished if they didn’t do anything wrong?
January 14th 2011 @ 7:48am
Mark Young said | January 14th 2011 @ 7:48am | Report comment
Hi Amazonfan
You are right, she is over consent and noone is doubting that she consented.
He is making the point that the code of conduct as listed above goes above and beyond that and states that the AFL considers sexual conduct with anyone under the 18 to be child abuse.
You, and many others, do not see them as having done anything inappropriate.
I, and many others, think they have done something incredibly inappropriate.
In the ten years I have had working in child related employment, we have been told literally hundreds of time, that no matter how young you are, how old they are, how polite and respectful you are, how keen and forward they are, getting involved sexually with a young person who is still at school or school aged is not on. They are still maturing emotionally, make stupid decisions and are enormously vulnerable. Any school teacher, child car worker, sports coach, outdoor education leader etc etc had heard that message and the vast majority believe it, follow it and champion it. They find people who break it quite disgusting.
So no, they may not have broken any laws, but they have made a lot of people sick to their stomachs.
January 14th 2011 @ 8:04am
Dan of Sans Souci said | January 14th 2011 @ 8:04am | Report comment
My original post gone missing but the point Mark Young is making is on the money. The AFL put this policy in place to ensure this sort of messy situation didn’t arise. It did arise as a result of the policy being apparently ignored by certain players. Hullo???!!! The AFL then decided against enforcing its own policy. How is that teaching the AFL players what is expected?
January 14th 2011 @ 9:48pm
amazonfan said | January 14th 2011 @ 9:48pm | Report comment
“How is that teaching the AFL players what is expected?”
Expected by whom? You? Perhaps the AFL realises that it is not able to get involved with the players’ personal lives.
January 14th 2011 @ 11:37pm
Dan of Sans Souci said | January 14th 2011 @ 11:37pm | Report comment
@ amazonfan It is “expected” by the policy that the AFL itself adopted!
What’s the point of having this AFL policy if they are not going to enforce it?
This particularl polciy was put in place at 18 years old presumably with the express purpose of discouraging and preventing for the good of AFL and for the good of schools and students precisely the events that have happened.
If your argument is that ultimately only the law is what matters then why have the AFL policies in the first place?
I agree that the law is where it should begin and end but it is the AFL that put this poilcy in place presumably to show its social and community responsibilites are higher than the law.
If the AFL didn’t really mean to enforce these policies then it should never have adopted these policies in the first place.
January 15th 2011 @ 5:39am
amazonfan said | January 15th 2011 @ 5:39am | Report comment
Well, maybe the AFL didn’t feel that the policy was broken!
The AFL has never shown any reluctance to punish players if it believed it had cause. Obviously the AFL didn’t feel that it had cause.
January 14th 2011 @ 9:40pm
amazonfan said | January 14th 2011 @ 9:40pm | Report comment
“He is making the point that the code of conduct as listed above goes above and beyond that and states that the AFL considers sexual conduct with anyone under the 18 to be child abuse.”
As RebB said, considering that she is over the age of consent, one can not really argue it was child abuse.
It actually does not matter what the AFL thinks. Sleeping with a 16 year-old is not child abuse, as 16 year-olds can consent. Yes, 16-year olds are children under the law, however when it comes to sex, one can’t ignore consent. As such, as long as her partner is not in a position of authority, she is no different to someone twice her age.
“Any school teacher, child car worker, sports coach, outdoor education leader”
Except these young men are footballers. They are not in a position of authority (which would be illegal), they are football players. They are also doing what plenty of young men do. Numerous young men sleep with 16/17 year olds. It’s not uncommon at all.
“So no, they may not have broken any laws, but they have made a lot of people sick to their stomachs.”
Well, that’s subjective, however I don’t have any doubts that many people are not impressed with it at all.
January 15th 2011 @ 8:17am
Mark Young said | January 15th 2011 @ 8:17am | Report comment
Hi Amazonfan.
I see what you are saying mate, but a couple of things to consider. Firstly, it is not a code of conduct, it is a child protection policy. The big difference being that a Child Protection Policy is written to comply with child protection laws in whatever state you are in, whereas code of conduct are guidelines for the company or organisation for how they expect people to act in their employment.
And secondly, you are spot on that it is their policy and if they don’t want to enforce it, it is their problem, not ours. Which of course raises the question, why have a policy if you aren’t going to follow it. But again, not our issue… theirs!
The big issue here, is that when they walked into a school to work with the kids, they became more then footballers. They took on added responsibilities in how they acted to the kids (And even developed seventeen year olds are kids in the eyes of the law, not talking about consent, just that they are kids, not adults).
When i worked with kids, if we had a plumber come in for half an hour to unblock a pipe, he would spend twenty minutes having our child protection policy explained to him, and expectations for his conduct IF he interacted with any kids made very clear. If I was to find out six months later that one of the kids at the camp that day, had fallen pregnant with his kids, It was part of my job, and everyone at the camp, to report this incident to the Children’s Helpline as an incident of concern.
This is not a group of blokes meeting a girl and sleeping with her.
It a group of blokes meeting a girl at her school and sleeping with her.]
But wait isn’t it disputed that they met at the school. Regardless, they should have waited until she had left school and then buggersied around.
I’m sorry to be such a harper on this, but I have met so many young people, kids and adults who have been really screwed up because of what happened to them when they were younger.
January 15th 2011 @ 2:12pm
Rich_daddy said | January 15th 2011 @ 2:12pm | Report comment
Mark Young,
As someone who has also worked with children, I would like to offer a different perspective.
I found the child protection policy I had to adhere to misguided and the fact I faced a police background check offensive regardless of its intentions. A compulsory background check implies every applicant is a potential paedophile. Of course the immediate rebuttal is “If you have nothing to hide”. However I could use that rebuttal to introduce mandatory strip and body cavity searching at airports to prevent terrorist attacks. Where do you draw the line?
Additionally, I’m sure you are aware that the majority of child abuse perpetrators are family members. Abuse from strangers such as plumbers and AFL players are in the small minority.
In relation to the St Kilda incident, if you keep putting up barriers, policies and penalties wherever players may come into contact with “children” what is to stop AFL clubs saying: “This is too much hassle and trouble, we are no longer doing school visits”. Surely this outcome (which could happen) would not be good for anyone.
January 15th 2011 @ 7:04pm
amazonfan said | January 15th 2011 @ 7:04pm | Report comment
“The big issue here, is that when they walked into a school to work with the kids, they became more then footballers”
The police investigated that, however they found no evidence that the players had met the girl at the clinic.
The probably should have waited until she left school, since it would, at the least have meant that they wouldn’t have received the negative publicity (although personally it doesn’t concern me), however I personally can not ignore that legally they did nothing wrong.
January 15th 2011 @ 7:15pm
amazonfan said | January 15th 2011 @ 7:15pm | Report comment
The reason I keep mentioning consent is that IMO it is the great balancer. Not all kids are emotionally immature (although most are probably), not all people have a moral problem with sleeping with 16 year-olds, not all adults are themselves emotionally mature. However consent is the closest we have to determining whether it is right or wrong to sleeping with kids (above a certain age.)
January 18th 2011 @ 1:05pm
Jaredsbro said | January 18th 2011 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
No no. Maybe you’re a libertarian Amazonfan, whatever but consent is not a particularly good defense when you have a person who is (even tho in your opinion they are not in a position of authority) in effect in a position of authority or at least high social/cultural standing interacting with those of lower standing. Sportspeople are, not in the eyes of the law no, but in common wisdom or convention they are celebrated individuals but you couldn’t make this legal because as you say it isn’t something objective, but a lot of people consider it even subjectively as morally questionable, even abhorent and that’s the case whether they’re paid sportspeople or Joe Bloggs from the street. Anyways our society venerates sportspeople, which means unfortunately they are hit with the book when they disappoint the good faith of the general public.
January 19th 2011 @ 12:39am
amazonfan said | January 19th 2011 @ 12:39am | Report comment
Jaredsbro, no, I’m not a libertarian (although like many people some features of libertarianism does appeal to me). I just don’t have a problem with it at all. However I certainly concede that I’m in a minority on this.
“and that’s the case whether they’re paid sportspeople or Joe Bloggs from the street.”
If they were Joe Bloggs from the street, we wouldn’t even know about it. The only reason we know about it is precisely because they are sportsmen.
“Anyways our society venerates sportspeople, which means unfortunately they are hit with the book when they disappoint the good faith of the general public.”
True. I don’t like it myself, but it unfortunately is true. Where’s an Australian Charles Barkley when you need one?
January 14th 2011 @ 1:10pm
Redb said | January 14th 2011 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
The issue is perhaps the definition of ‘abuse’.
It is too simple to suggest sexual intercourse equals abuse. If the sex was consentual and not illegal under the law (both true) and the girl did not feel the sex was abusive, then its hard to argue she was abused.
I accept it could still be intepreted that any sexual contact with a girl under 16 is automatically considered child abuse, however when it is not illegal nor forced I think that is the distinction.
A code of conduct is often established as guideline to allow an organisation to act to terminate should one of its employees be found too have engaged in one of these acts, in this case, child abuse.
if the girl is over 18 it is rape, not child abuse. It is the definition of ‘child abuse’ that is under question.
It is also possible that Gilbert and Armitage were not aware she was only 16. To date it is only the girl that has alleged they knew,etc. Did the AFL let them off on the grounds of ignorance/stupidity?
I still beleive there are unanswered questions about Sam Gilbert. His conduct is not up to scratch either with the girl if he had a relationship or the taking of those photos,etc. The girl has not covered herself in glory, she is prone to extreme actions.
Its interesting as her fame has increased, she has retracted much of her early statements and now just wants an apology. Filled with the 15 seconds of fame, she is more content.
January 14th 2011 @ 8:08am
Rich_daddy said | January 14th 2011 @ 8:08am | Report comment
It also says: “All allegations of child abuse will be dealt with promptly, seriously, sensitively and confidentially.”
“The AFL requires that anyone who reasonably suspects that a child has been or is being abused by someone within our sport, or by his/her parents/guardians to report it immediately to the police or relevant government agency, and the AFL or relevant Affiliated State Body. The AFL or Affiliated State Body will not attempt to investigate, mediate or conduct any hearing into any allegation of child abuse as this is the role of the police and the relevant government agency.”
In essence the AFL are arrogant cowboys making up their own rules but when it comes to enforcing it, they wring their hands and leave it up to the police. However as pointed by Amazonfan, in the eyes of the ACTUAL law, the St Kilda players have done nothing wrong.
The AFL policy smacks of hypocrisy and is hardly worth the paper it is written on.
January 18th 2011 @ 12:08pm
Jaredsbro said | January 18th 2011 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
Hmm I hope none of us are condoning what’s going on by saying we can’t fix it so we’d all better stop being hypocritical and let the boys be boys with no acknowledgement of the real-world consequences for the all-too-often overpaid. And don’t label me anti-Semitic for what I’m about to say, but this has been a problem ever since a 10-commandments type logic entered our sporting landscapes. It’s bigger than that too as its also the case in our wider cultural context. I have no problem with there being rules which promote the right kind of image even if we’re being a little too idealistic, but the rules shouldn’t be used to scape-goat those higher in the debauchery tree so those sinners lower down can choose to absolve themselves through their obscurity.
It’s not just the hypocrisy of the club’s management and boards which is at fault here, it’s obviously a cultural problem, especially as it is routinely accepted by many people in both Australian and NZ cultures that excuse and even encourage binge-ful behaviour, whether drinking, sexual, social, financial. In no way can players be responsible for changing this on their own, but it’s too much to allow them to do what they do as the media has a very important role (not just to make money for its shareholders
but also to remind those who watch/listen what is the right behaviour and what isn’t. What is an acceptable part of our culture and what isn’t. Teaching our kids the laws of the land as well as the laws of cultural (non)accountability. I mean for goodness sake they now don’t show streakers at the cricket, why should misconduct of the players themselves be tolerated as part of the entertainment.
The trick is to return to a point where there is enough incentive to not commit these sins in the first place, because when the law-makers themselves are committing these sins the law itself is sinful and even in a secular society that for mine leads towards the law-makers (and us the law-enforcers) hunting those who are the easiest targets, those who may have more reason than others to be afforded another chance (obviously with the condition of making restitution, not just paying a fine) as ambassadors of proper conduct, where its most observable and where their commentary on the culture they are a part of has most value if it is prised away from the usual code of silence/denial/token justice