AussieRulesBlog is not the first commentator to note the propensity of AFL clubs recently to act before guilt has been established. The Saints have taken it to a new level by sacking Andrew Lovett today after a charge of rape was laid against him.
Underlying the Saints’ action is is the assumption that he is guilty — before the charges have been tested in court. In fact, the Saints have taken a fairly aggressive stance with Lovett pretty much from day one: an interesting course considering his somewhat chequered recent past, their trading of a first-round draft pick to secure him and the loss of a onetime club captain.
We make no claim or comment about Lovett’s guilt or innocence. That is the court’s task. But it does seem to us a bit rich for the Saints to have taken the actions they have as the circumstances have unfolded. Scuttlebutt would suggest he didn’t endear himself to the Saints’ playing group in the short time they were together, and that, as much as anything, may be behind much of what is now unfolding — keeping the troops happy.
Every Australian citizen, apart from AFL and NRL footballers it seems, is entitled to the presumption of innocence, despite the hyperbole of the popular media on an almost daily basis. Why, we wonder, are these footballers a special case? Why can their livelihoods be snatched away at the breath of a scandal?
Lovett was always going to be a high-maintenance project for the Saints. What will they do if he’s not found guilty? Clearly, if that eventuates, they’ll find themselves back in court quick smart defending an action for wrongful dismissal.
Posts
4 comments:
I agree with everything you have said.
But,
The Saints have said it was not merely this one incident, so we must be careful not to say thats the reason (even if it is)..
and
as we are not privy to his contract we don't know what they have the right to sack him for.
The interesting thing is though that the AFLPA are backing him very quickly which may mean he does have a case for unfair dismissal.
Yes James. They would say that, wouldn't they. At the very least, the timing is poor. He can't have added to the list of transgressions since Christmas, so the bullets were already in the gun if the Saints' statement can be taken at face value. However, despite having the ammunition primed, they wait until charges are laid before cutting him loose! It's not a good look.
Thanks for reading and commenting by the way!
In plenty of Jobs in the real world you could be stood down or suspended without pay if you had a serious criminal charge laid against you.
Of course you're right Michael. As I've tried to indicate, I think there's more to what's gone on than is obvious. For instance, if the rest of the playing group is refusing to play with Lovett, this scenario offers a face-saving method for excommunicating the miscreant.
Post a Comment