Nixon, of all people, should be sufficiently media savvy to handle a combative interviewer.
Yet he seemed unable or unwilling to defuse some tense situations and an argumentative line of questioning during the interview.
Given he spent the best part of twenty years ensuring that the mistakes of the players he managed were presented in the best possible light by the media, I was surprised that Nixon was not a much more polished media performer.
In fact, I’m still unsure exactly why Nixon agreed to be interviewed.
If he hoped that he would get a fair hearing, and that the interview might engender support from the viewing public, then he will be sorely disappointed.
Nixon came across as highly strung, irritable, and was notably evasive when asked some important questions.
Despite recognising his error in going to the hotel room of the young lady who has become known as the “St Kilda Schoolgirl,” Nixon felt that the episode did not warrant the media attention it has been given.
Nixon would have been well aware of the type of questions he was likely to be asked during the interview, yet seemed angry when the hard questions were posed to him.
Maybe he was unhappy that the interviewer wasn’t more sympathetic to his plight. But was there much to be sympathetic about?
By his own admission Nixon seriously erred when he went into the hotel room of the young lady, claiming it was the biggest mistake of his life.
While he denied ever taking drugs or having a sexual relationship with the young woman, Nixon did make some startling admissions which reflect poorly on him.
Nixon admitted to sending “a substantial amount of text messages” to the young lady, as well as commenting to her that he would check his phone later one night when he was “on top of her.”
Attempting to pass off this comment as a joke is, in itself, laughable, and completely indefensible given Nixon is forty-seven (and married) and the woman in question was seventeen at the time.
Given the fact that Nixon has seen players under his management make poor decisions over and over again, he was better placed than almost anyone else in the football industry to recognise a situation which would ultimately lead to no good, and yet he failed to do so.
Not only did Nixon fail to see this, but he put himself in a compromising position by conversing often with her via text message, engaging in sexual banter with her, and going to her hotel room.
Maybe Nixon was truly naïve, and simply didn’t recognise the compromised position that he had placed himself in, and the inevitable media storm which it would create?
Maybe Nixon suffered from the same Superman Complex as some of the players he has managed in the past, and believed that nothing bad would come from his actions, or that he would never get caught.
Neither of these are particularly good excuses.
Putting the allegations of drug-taking and sexual misconduct to one side, Nixon has made plenty of poor decisions in his dealings with the young lady based only on what he confirmed within the interview, yet sadly didn’t seem to be able to fully recognise this.
Just how many poor decisions Nixon made in his dealings with the young lady remains to be seen, but the public interest in his plight and that of the young lady seems set to continue for some time to come.
Onlooker
Guest
and this story has taken another twist and turn today. And certain media outlets credibility is put further on the line. and for anyone following the girls tweets, she's been putting a few out through the early hours of this morning showing greater concern about the pictures of her used more than anything else. Apparently the truth is out there.......on this (ni)X(on) File.
Sam el Perro
Guest
This, in The Australian today: http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/ricky-nixon-texts-and-video-involving-kim-duthie-are-genuine-report-finds/story-e6freooo-1226050365173 A summary of points appears near the bottom of the story: The report’s findings state Nixon: * Disadvantaged his clients by taking advantage of a person that had been in conflict with them; * Used his position of power to take advantage of a vulnerable person; * Entered into personal relationship with this person; * Had a sexual relationship with this person; * Used illicit drugs with this person; and, * Engaged in threatening conduct.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
I don't disagree at all. I completely agree that it was unseemly what Nixon did, and I think that if the girl was more self-confident, she wouldn't have allowed herself to get into this situation; and as for Nixon, he has a lot of problems of his own. I'm not going to go into the 'if it was my daughter/sister/niece' talk, but I don't think anybody would be happy with a relationship involving a 40+ year-old and a 16 year-old, whether they be related to him or to her. The reason I focus on the law is that morality is subjective; yet (putting aside the conflict of interest and that he knew she was trouble) the media made him out to be some kind of criminal. While I don't think that a 40+ year-old sleeping with a 16 year-old is a great idea, I don't regard it as immoral, and since I don't love entering moral-based discussions, I prefer to focus on the law. "And for him to defend, which he seems incapable of." I didn't watch the interview (except a bit on AFL Classified), and he clearly should not have done it. Even Craig Hutchinson questioned his decision! "It’s pretty difficult to not side with the underdog, especially one who’s played the media game (at which Nixon should be an old hand) so very, very well." The problem is that as underdogs go, she is incredibly unattractive, and to quote Redb, a 'pathological liar and trouble with a capital T.' The other problem I have is that if the players and Nixon weren't famous, it wouldn't be on the front page of newspapers. What the players did wasn't unusual, a lot of guys are jerks, and Nixon's behaviour also wasn't unusual. Quite a few married 40+ year-old men get involved with much younger women (granted, most are probably not teenagers), and while the details were unusual, the fact that he didn't handle it well isn't uncommon. The only reason we even know about it is that the players and Nixon are well known, and personally, I don't particularly enjoy 'scorned lover' revenge tales.
Sam el Perro
Guest
@Redb: One and the same Atherton.
Brendan
Roar Rookie
Redb says “I beleive (Sic) the Daily Telegraph has even commented it has a conflict of interest at times when reporting NRL scandals." If there is a conflict of interest it’s because there is an appetite for trashy NRL media stories. Even if that was the case they have done a real job on the NRL in recent years so much so that only today News Ltd has had to apologise to an NRL player for defaming him. http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/apology-to-brett-stewart/story-e6frep5o-1226047831821 Bring back investigative journalists I say!! I’m personally sick of the trashy sensationalistic reporting that fills pages and pages of media news.
Sherrin-Burley-Faulkner
Guest
To answer the question, i reckon Nixon is guilty, innocent, smart, dumb, cunning and naive, probably a bit like the rest of us. And the St KiIda schoolgirl is probably the same.
Al from ctown
Guest
If at the start of it all was correct, that the club was paying for the hotel inwhich she was staying, and that Nixon was supposedly going there to 'help' her in her situation with the players... Then was he not in a position of responsibility over her? Just wondering ... -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
damos_x
Guest
see my most recent post for apology on the legal status of having sex with children in Victoria, if i have offended anyone other than amazonfan ( who may or may not have been offended) in believing wrongfully that adults having sex with children was illegal then please let me know & i will apologise forthwith.
damos_x
Guest
I apologise amazonfan, i looked it up & it is in fact legal to have consensual sex with a 16 or 17 year old in Victoria regardless of your age as long as you are not a guardian or hold a position of responsibility to that person. So just to be clear, if you are an adult you can have sex with a child as long as you have no responsibility to them , which seems implicit by the fact that you are having sex with a child. my apologies though for saying you were wrong.
Redb
Roar Guru
Sam, Are you from Atherton as in Atherton Tablelands? Will be there tommorrow.
Sherrin-Burley-Faulkner
Guest
Dont panic Sam, eventually there will be an Australian football club in Atherton.
Sam el Perro
Roar Pro
Yes, amazonfan, I do think there is a culture problem. And when I say demeaning, it seems to be demeaning to those outside of the culture of those young men playing football. Whether that involves acts against women, denigrating an area because it has people form a different ethnic background, whatever, it seems to be homogenous and exclusive. And this "closed society" leads to actions such as those you deplore. I do think it is a broad problem. Just this year, at least 20 names have cropped in the media in relation to incidents. [I am not going to paste a list in here, because I don't want to make any defamatory imputations, even though I am only repeating what is in the public domain. Googling AFL player incident brings up a comprehensive list.] How many more are there? You make a good point when you say that many non-footballers also get into trouble. This is true, and they are roundly denigrated. Yet for some reason, if you denigrate an AFL identity, you are accused of hating the code, hating Australia because it is our indigenous code, or whatever. Time to open up the closed shop.
damos_x
Guest
A 16 year old is a minor my friend & yes it is very much illegal. Someone posted that she in fact lied about her age & is 19, which makes her an adult, but by all accounts the police have dealt with the situation in a manner which suggests that at the time she was in fact a minor.
damos_x
Guest
Damage !!?? she is a minor & adults are supposed to be aware of their responsibilities when dealing with minors, that's why we have statutory rape for example, so that even if a minor is complicit in their dealings with an adult the adult has a responsibility to know better.
Redb
Roar Guru
Well its still morally questionable given the age difference, but Nixon knew the situation.
Al from ctown
Guest
Apologies swampy.. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
jeremy
Guest
It is not illegal for a man in his 40′s, or guys in their 20′s, to sleep with a 16-year old girl While this statement is factually correct, I feel that there's a societal standard to which he's being held, and that's entirely appropriate. Other *actual* crimes are likely to have committed - the supply of drugs and alcohol, and I would be surprised if the players didn't also supply her alcohol (albeit difficult to prove) which does influence the situation somewhat. There are a set of commonly accepted social guidelines that determine how society views sexual relationships between persons of wildly different ages. While it's not strictly illegal for a fourty-year-old to engage in sexual relationships with sixteen year olds, it's not considered healthy primarily because there is an imbalance in power and influence. This concept that an older party can be considered to hold undue power or influence in a relationship is referenced in sex-with-minor case law the world over. If you'd like a practical example of this, head down to your local girl's school at collection time with a 40-year-old male and try to get you some hot teenage action. The police are likely to be called, as you are likely to be labelled as a 'predator'. Unfortunately Nixons actions towards this girl are similar in shape, tone and feel to a predator's. Unfair? Yes. And for him to defend, which he seems incapable of. Wow, cheerleading the personal destruction of people you’ve never met, and who have not broken the law. I'm inclined to agree with premise that there cannot be moral absolutism and that all parties involved have their hands equally dirty. However, Nixon and the other players have privilege, finance, and very large, very profitable organisations on their side. It's pretty difficult to not side with the underdog, especially one who's played the media game (at which Nixon should be an old hand) so very, very well.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
I think that Nixon's actions were deplorable, for at the very least they seriously violated the interests of his clients. As for the players, it doesn't concern me at all. BTW, Sam, you keep on referring to a culture problem (and even call it 'dirty, demeaning' at one point!) However (and this will by my last post on this thread until tonight, so if I don't respond straight away, that's the reason), I don't understand what you are referring to. The AFL is made up of more than 700 young men, many of whom are in their late teens to early 20's. Some do get into trouble and some embark on self-destructive behaviour. However, what they do is not unique to the AFL; many non-footballers also drink late, engage in risky sex and act like jerks, gamble etc... The AFL is simply a high profile sample of the community. There are plenty of idiots in the AFL, but their idiocies are neither unique to the AFL nor worse than what plenty of non-footballers get up to.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
I don't deny that "the players and Nixon made repeated lapses in judgement that boggle the mind, and the girl exploited those lapses for all they were worth and have collectively made them all look very dumb" (well, at least Nixon), however I'm not going to cheer her on as if this was 'Revenge of the School Girl.'
Sam el Perro
Roar Pro
Who's bring other sports into it? I was only talking about the problems of AFL culture. Surely you aren't going to start yet another, *yawn*, tiresome code war?