Dustin Martin

[dragit]

Moods, I didn't say she was staggering and I'm not convinced that the story is entirely accurate either... so please don't slander me... I am relaying an account that I believe comes from a reasonable source...

I'm open to Rita's version being the truth... but remain skeptical... this story has been odd from the beginning IMO & I'm sorry if that means people want to paint me as a victim blaming mysoginist

You seem upset by a version of events that contradicts the one we've been fed... either the afl are covering up or there is more to the story, it's that simple.

I think the AFL stands to cop way more flack for not handing down a punishment, which says to me they have genuine doubts on some of her claims.

[dragit]

Poor Stevie J got 5 weeks for being drunk in public... no 'altercation', was arrested but charges were dropped.

Why would they do that? Aren't they all about protecting their image, surely they could have massaged a better outcome than that?

[markp]

Poor Stevie J got 5 weeks for being drunk in public... no 'altercation', was arrested but charges were dropped.

Why would they do that? Aren't they all about protecting their image, surely they could have massaged a better outcome than that?

That was Geelong's penalty.

They then went on to win a flag or three.

Richmond have chosen the fev route.

[saynta]

I said from the outset that this case will go no where without a victim statement and ppl screaming for the police to get involved were ignorant. -

This

[markp]

Just because ultimately the victim chose not to provide a statement and charges weren't laid doesn't meant it wasn't appropriate for the police to investigate.

[dragit]

Just because someone is claiming to be a victim does not make them a victim.

[Bluthy]

Moods, I didn't say she was staggering and I'm not convinced that the story is entirely accurate either... so please don't slander me... I am relaying an account that I believe comes from a reasonable source...

I'm open to Rita's version being the truth... but remain skeptical... this story has been odd from the beginning IMO & I'm sorry if that means people want to paint me as a victim blaming mysoginist

You seem upset by a version of events that contradicts the one we've been fed... either the afl are covering up or there is more to the story, it's that simple.

I think the AFL stands to cop way more flack for not handing down a punishment, which says to me they have genuine doubts on some of her claims.

Interesting point Dragit. I guess my take on that is that the claim that he threatened to kill a woman, in this year where they has been so much talk of violence against women in particular in the AFL, raised the stakes immensely and means suddenly the AFL were sitting on a nuclear bomb. Find him "guilty" ie basically what she says was true, and the bomb goes off. Then you can't really just give him 2 or 3 weeks that probably Richmond would accept. People would go mental. So the only other option is not to set the bomb off and indicate that her claims weren't found true in a global sense. I think the mode of the AFL from the outset was to defuse this bomb and Rita sums all that up really well. This is just so inbred in the AFL for these sort of huge issues. Look at the Essendon drug investigation they completely insinuated themselves into. The smaller issues they can let roll out anyway they want as they know if won't cause huge fall out.

See the way Gillian said "we had evidence that refuted it". Why wouldn't he say the integrity unit found...or the internal investigation found?. You know why? Because he was upto his eyeballs in this investigation. The CEO should let them investigate and present their findings and recommendations to the board. But it doesn't work like that at the AFL. A huge issue like this they want to be all over. They don't want simple due process to roll out. Thats too dangerous. Control, control, control is their core principal at the AFL.

I guess we all put the jigsaw pieces together in our own way. Thats how my puzzle is laid out at the moment. Any more pieces pop up I'll slot them in and see if the picture changes.

[saynta]

Just because ultimately the victim chose not to provide a statement and charges weren't laid doesn't meant it wasn't appropriate for the police to investigate.

I agree, but to convict Martin they would need to have her appear in court to give evidence. She could be compelled but then the prosecution would have to treat her as a hostile witness. Something they would be unlikely to do seeing she had already received death threatsand reportedly under a great deal of strain.

[ripplug66]

Moods, I didn't say she was staggering and I'm not convinced that the story is entirely accurate either... so please don't slander me... I am relaying an account that I believe comes from a reasonable source...

I'm open to Rita's version being the truth... but remain skeptical... this story has been odd from the beginning IMO & I'm sorry if that means people want to paint me as a victim blaming mysoginist

You seem upset by a version of events that contradicts the one we've been fed... either the afl are covering up or there is more to the story, it's that simple.

I think the AFL stands to cop way more flack for not handing down a punishment, which says to me they have genuine doubts on some of her claims.

Interesting point Dragit. I guess my take on that is that the claim that he threatened to kill a woman, in this year where they has been so much talk of violence against women in particular in the AFL, raised the stakes immensely and means suddenly the AFL were sitting on a nuclear bomb. Find him "guilty" ie basically what she says was true, and the bomb goes off. Then you can't really just give him 2 or 3 weeks that probably Richmond would accept. People would go mental. So the only other option is not to set the bomb off and indicate that her claims weren't found true in a global sense. I think the mode of the AFL from the outset was to defuse this bomb and Rita sums all that up really well. This is just so inbred in the AFL for these sort of huge issues. Look at the Essendon drug investigation they completely insinuated themselves into. The smaller issues they can let roll out anyway they want as they know if won't cause huge fall out.

See the way Gillian said "we had evidence that refuted it". Why wouldn't he say the integrity unit found...or the internal investigation found?. You know why? Because he was upto his eyeballs in this investigation. The CEO should let them investigate and present their findings and recommendations to the board. But it doesn't work like that at the AFL. A huge issue like this they want to be all over. They don't want simple due process to roll out. Thats too dangerous. Control, control, control is their core principal at the AFL.

I guess we all put the jigsaw pieces together in our own way. Thats how my puzzle is laid out at the moment. Any more pieces pop up I'll slot them in and see if the picture changes.

Just made up stuff Bluthy. You have no idea if Gillian was involved. I would suggest he had little involvement but your MO seems to be to make up stuff. I think Dragit had the most interesting point in all this and that is why would Richmond start the police action if they wanted it to go away. Also I know Richmond went off Bennell for one single incident that was seen but a club leaders son. That doesn't seem to be a club that will look the other way if it gives them a flag.

[markp]

Tracey made it clear to Richmond and the AFL that she did not want to make a police complaint as that would ultimately reveal her identity and expose her to more abuse.

When the AFL did refer the matter to police, Tracey said an integrity officer told her, “we have washed our hands of you”, before adding that a police investigation would “buy the AFL a year”.

[ripplug66]

Tracey made it clear to Richmond and the AFL that she did not want to make a police complaint as that would ultimately reveal her identity and expose her to more abuse.

When the AFL did refer the matter to police, Tracey said an integrity officer told her, “we have washed our hands of you”, before adding that a police investigation would “buy the AFL a year”.

Reveal her identity? Really? Is that all she had. You are still taking a risk taking it to the cops especially when she wasn't going to. Its a risk that suggests they knew more than we do.

[markp]

They knew she was lying?

[ripplug66]

They knew she was lying?

No idea. As I said they knew more than us.

[markp]

Ok... So what 'risk' do you think they were taking by reporting it to the police?

[ripplug66]

Ok... So what 'risk' do you think they were taking by reporting it to the police?

The risk was clear. Something happened. The girl may have spoken or as you are argued at the time that wasn't important anyway. Martin may have lied to the club and the AFL. Why report it if they didn't have too. Maybe they thought it was the best way to get the truth. If I thought he stuffed up and I knew the lady wasn't going to report it I certainly would not have.

I wouldn't have a clue what happened and neither I doubt would anyone here but my guess is there is a little truth and a little lies in the all the stories we have heard.

[markp]

Ok... So what 'risk' do you think they were taking by reporting it to the police?

The risk was clear. Something happened. The girl may have spoken or as you are argued at the time that wasn't important anyway. Martin may have lied to the club and the AFL. Why report it if they didn't have too. Maybe they thought it was the best way to get the truth. If I thought he stuffed up and I knew the lady wasn't going to report it I certainly would not have.

I wouldn't have a clue what happened and neither I doubt would anyone here but my guess is there is a little truth and a little lies in the all the stories we have heard.

Why would it be a 'risk' to the integrity unit or the afl that 'something happened'?

Didn't they report it to the police after 4 or 5 days investigating it themselves because they thought 'something happened'?

[ripplug66]

Ok... So what 'risk' do you think they were taking by reporting it to the police?

The risk was clear. Something happened. The girl may have spoken or as you are argued at the time that wasn't important anyway. Martin may have lied to the club and the AFL. Why report it if they didn't have too. Maybe they thought it was the best way to get the truth. If I thought he stuffed up and I knew the lady wasn't going to report it I certainly would not have.

I wouldn't have a clue what happened and neither I doubt would anyone here but my guess is there is a little truth and a little lies in the all the stories we have heard.

Why would it be a 'risk' to the integrity unit or the afl that 'something happened'?

Didn't they report it to the police after 4 or 5 days investigating it themselves because they thought 'something happened'?

You and I know and everyone who follows the game know the AFL don't want bad news if they can help it. There was a risk reporting it no matter how much investigation they did. If you don't think that well we obviously think differently which I suppose was obvious anyway.

[Dis Believer]

Like most "he said, she said" stories, my guess is that the truth is somewhere in the middle of both versions of events. But like most things to do with a conflict between a female and a male, the majority seem to automatically assume the female's version of events is 100% the truth, and the male's version is 100% false.

[markp]

Ok... So what 'risk' do you think they were taking by reporting it to the police?

The risk was clear. Something happened. The girl may have spoken or as you are argued at the time that wasn't important anyway. Martin may have lied to the club and the AFL. Why report it if they didn't have too. Maybe they thought it was the best way to get the truth. If I thought he stuffed up and I knew the lady wasn't going to report it I certainly would not have.

I wouldn't have a clue what happened and neither I doubt would anyone here but my guess is there is a little truth and a little lies in the all the stories we have heard.

Why would it be a 'risk' to the integrity unit or the afl that 'something happened'?

Didn't they report it to the police after 4 or 5 days investigating it themselves because they thought 'something happened'?

You and I know and everyone who follows the game know the AFL don't want bad news if they can help it. There was a risk reporting it no matter how much investigation they did. If you don't think that well we obviously think differently which I suppose was obvious anyway.

I still don't see how the integrity unit or afl are taking a 'risk' in reporting it to the police?

How could they possibly 'help it' re bad news in this instance?

And I'll ask again, surely they reported it to the police after 4 or 5 days investigating it themselves exactly because they determined it was serious?

Why else would they?

[dragit]

Like most "he said, she said" stories, my guess is that the truth is somewhere in the middle of both versions of events. But like most things to do with a conflict between a female and a male, the majority seem to automatically assume the female's version of events is 100% the truth, and the male's version is 100% false.

How dare you.

[markp]

What's martin's version?

[Moods]

Like most "he said, she said" stories, my guess is that the truth is somewhere in the middle of both versions of events. But like most things to do with a conflict between a female and a male, the majority seem to automatically assume the female's version of events is 100% the truth, and the male's version is 100% false.

Yes. I find it far easier to believe that a female patron would stand up in a restaurant, announce to the place that she is a media person, then confront a famous footballer who was doing nothing more than playfully making walrus teeth with his chopsticks in the corner of the restaurant, whilst obligingly having photos taken with the public. She confronts the drunken footballer and DEMANDS an interview and when refused, starts screaming at him and chastising him for being drunk.

this sort of thing is always happening I know.

She then goes on to make up a story that she was verbally attacked in such a way she felt fear for her life, knowing that the whole restaurant would be able to discredit her. She must have also known that the CCTV cameras in the restaurant weren't working, so she knew that she would be able to get away with such an outrageous ploy. All this to get an interview with a drunk Melbourne football star (even though she's from Sydney and most likely much of her work is in Sydney) and running off to the tiges to complain because Dusty wouldn't oblige

It sounds completely believable - if this is what Dusty and his supporters are running with they should save it for the comedy festival

[IanRush]

Like most "he said, she said" stories, my guess is that the truth is somewhere in the middle of both versions of events. But like most things to do with a conflict between a female and a male, the majority seem to automatically assume the female's version of events is 100% the truth, and the male's version is 100% false.

There was always a whiff of 'women's rights' about the Dustin martin thingo, that said, he has a rep for behaving like a tool.

The chick that complained worked for Channel 7, so that suggest motive also.

[borderbarry]

28 pages on a player from another club who appears to be unstable anyway?

[ripplug66]

Like most "he said, she said" stories, my guess is that the truth is somewhere in the middle of both versions of events. But like most things to do with a conflict between a female and a male, the majority seem to automatically assume the female's version of events is 100% the truth, and the male's version is 100% false.

There was always a whiff of 'women's rights' about the Dustin martin thingo, that said, he has a rep for behaving like a tool.

The chick that complained worked for Channel 7, so that suggest motive also.

No it doesn't. It would suggest even less of a motive.