Debate has raged over whether Hawthorn should lose draft picks in the fallout from the racism investigation.
The AFL last week concluded eight-plus month probe into the matter, with no findings made against former Hawks officials Alastair Clarkson, Chris Fagan or Jason Burt. However league boss Gillon McLachlan suggested Hawthorn could still be sanctioned.
Speaking on Channel 9’s Footy Classified, AFL journalist Damian Barrett believes the AFL stripping Hawthorn of draft capital for its handling of the Binmada report, which uncovered the racism allegations from families of former First Nations players, is the most appropriate measure.
Watch every match of every round of the 2023 Toyota AFL Premiership Season LIVE on Kayo Sports. New to Kayo? Start your free trial now >
NEW FOX FOOTY PODCAST – De Goey case drama as finals race heats up
Listen below or subscribe in Apple Podcasts or Spotify
“The anger from club land towards Hawthorn hasn’t dissipated at all … I think without a proper sanction – and a non-fine sanction – it’ll just be a wet lettuce leaf outcome,” Barrett said.
“Not only did they outsource (the report), they the allowed it to run in a way where the allegations weren’t put to the three key people.
“But there were recommendations submitted back to the Hawthorn Football Club from that review and we’re now eight months later into it.
“It’s affected the whole competition for a year.”
The timing would be less than ideal for the rebuilding Hawks under Sam Mitchell, currently sitting 16th on the ladder, meaning they’d hold the third overall pick in this year’s draft in addition to an early second rounder.
Former Collingwood president Eddie McGuire held the opposite view to Barrett, arguing a financial penalty would be more suitable.
De Goey to spend time away during ban | 02:21
“They hey had a problem, they investigated it. Now, OK, it might‘ve gone off the rails there, but I don’t think they did anything intentionally wrong,” he told Footy Classified.
“To me, draft picks doesn‘t seem like the right thing. Why are you punishing what’s going forward? The president is gone, there was a board upheaval directly about this, the chief executive who was in charge of it is gone, they’ve had horrific reputational damage and they’ve had to go to all their sponsors.
“I just think sometimes in football these days, it doesn‘t matter how many times you apologise. When is the end of these things? When can you put a full stop?
“I don’t think it (the AFL penalty) should affect them going forward. The football team and the members, they had nothing to do with this.
“I think the intention was the right intention. The fact that they mucked it up, OK you can sort that out, but that’s an administration issue.
“They’re all gone the people who were there.”
While Clarkson, Fagan and Burt were exonerated by the league, the families involved in the accusations are set to take the matter to the Australian Human Rights Commission.
Essendon legend Matthew Lloyd meanwhile questioned whether the AFL could “make a statement” against the Hawks.
“Do you think the AFL will look to make it the opposite and need to make a statement here?” He posed.
“They’re not going to get Clarkson, Fagan or Burt, but somebody’s got to pay for this. Will it be Hawthorn?”
