Violence against women and Sports “Stars”: trial by media or special treatment?

I have watched with a rising level of dismay the coverage of the current allegations made against a footballer from the South Sydney Rabbitohs Rugby League club, Ben Te’o. The incident in question happened some 5 weeks ago and was the subject of a police complaint that was, apparently, investigated to a conclusion that no charges would be laid. Then Channel 9 broke the “exclusive” last week via an interview with the victim of the alleged assault. This lead to a media frenzy that included the revelation about the conduct of the investigation the first time around. Today, amongst another media circus, the victim has made a statement to the police and then been dealt with for outstanding warrants and the alleged attacker has refused to be questioned by the media at a press conference for the Queensland State of Origin team. I know this because my twitter feed has been filled with seemingly minute by minute updates of the statement, the appearance before court and the failure to be questioned.

Let me be clear: domestic violence and violence against women in any form is abhorrent. There is never and nor should there ever be an excuse for such violence. Those making statements about the character of the victim need to shut up and let due process take its course.

What I am massively concerned about in this case and that which has led me to write this blog is the manner with which this particular alleged case of violence against a woman has been dealt with by the media. That is what I want to focus on today.

First some statistics; the ABS Personal Safety Survey 2005, which defined violence as any incident involving the occurrence, attempt or threat of either physical or sexual assault, found:
•since the age of 15, two percent of women (160 000) and one per cent of men (68 100) had experienced violence from a current partner
•since the age of 15, some 15 per cent of women (1 135 500) and five per cent of men (367 300) had experienced violence from a former partner
•Seven per cent of men (485 400) and three per cent of women (242 000) were physically assaulted in the 12 months prior to the survey
•of those women who were physically assaulted in the 12 months prior to the survey, 31 per cent (73 800) were physically assaulted by a current and/or previous partner compared with four per cent (21 200) of men
•almost two thirds of men who were physically assaulted in the 12 months prior to the survey (66 per cent or 319 100) nominated a stranger as the perpetrator, compared with 22 per cent of women (52 900)
•in the 12 months prior to the survey, 1.3 per cent of women (101 600) and 0.6 per cent of men (42 300) were sexually assaulted and
•of those who were sexually assaulted in the 12 months prior to the survey, 21 per cent of women (21 500) reported that the perpetrator was a previous partner; eight per cent (7 800) reported that the perpetrator was a current partner. No males reported sexual assault by a current or previous partner.

Later ABS surveys have found similar results. Further the Australian component of the IVAWS in 2002–03 employed a broader definition of violence, measuring physical violence (including threats), sexual violence (including unwanted sexual touching) and psychological violence (including controlling behaviours such, as put downs and keeping track of whereabouts). The survey found:
•34 per cent of women who had a current or former intimate partner (including boyfriends) experienced at least one form of violence from a partner during their lifetime (since the age of 16).
•31 per cent of women who had a current or former intimate partner experienced physical violence and an estimated 12 per cent suffered sexual violence from a partner during their lifetime.
•Of the women who had a current or former intimate partner, six per cent reported that their partner had forced them to have sexual intercourse at some stage during their lifetime; this is the most common form of sexual violence perpetrated by intimate partners. A further three per cent of these women reported that their partners had attempted to force them to have sexual intercourse and four per cent experienced unwanted sexual touching.
•Of the women who were in a current relationship (spouse, de facto partner, or boyfriend), ten per cent reported that they had experienced violence from their current partner over their lifetime, and three per cent over the past 12 months. Physical violence was more commonly reported (nine per cent, lifetime) than sexual violence (one per cent, lifetime).
•Almost four in ten women (between 37 and 40 per cent) who were in a current relationship reported experiencing at least one type of controlling behaviour over their lifetime; six per cent experienced controlling behaviour in the past 12 months.
•Women experienced higher levels of violence from a previous partner than a current partner. Of women who have had a past relationship, 36 per cent reported experiencing violence from a previous partner over their lifetime, compared with ten per cent for a current partner.
•Previous partners were also reported as perpetrating more severe violence than current male partners. For example, less than one per cent of women in a current relationship reported that their current partner had used or threatened to use a knife or gun on them. However, six per cent of women who had a former relationship reported that their previous partner had used or threatened to use one of these weapons on them.

(All of the foregoing has been reproduced from a Background Note published by the Australian Federal Department of parliamentary Services entitled “Domestic violence in Australia—an overview of the issues” authored by Liesl Mitchell).

You are probably asking what the relevance of this data is to the current situation involving Ben Te’o? Well the answer is simple: how many of the other victims / perpetrators of domestic violence captured in the statistics above faced a lead story on every news service in Australia (well Queensland and New South Wales) and then had the giving of their statement become an event live tweeted?

Herein lies my major objection to the way this matter has been dealt with by the media: for every domestic violence incident reported as an exclusive on Channel 9 there are a plethora of such cases that never reach the media let alone the lead story. Why? Because those cases do not involve a sports “star” of any note. To me this creates a whole poultice of issues including but not limited to the complete lack of due process that now could possibly follow if Mr Te’o is charged and the matter proceeds through the courts. How is Te’o supposed to defend himself and, indeed, find a jury that has not pre-judged the case? More to the point, we now have a victim who also has become a cause celebre and has faced the ire of fans and friends of Te’o which one could only expect would be enhanced if charges are actually laid. The media have much to answer for the way they have conducted themselves here.

However, for all of the foregoing, the biggest problem that I have with the reporting of this particular case of domestic violence is the, to my way thinking, monumental lack of respect the television networks, in particular Channel 9, et al have shown to the victims of domestic violence who do not make accusations against sport stars but against individuals from every other walk of life. Where are the lead stories about the plight of those victims? Where are the exclusive interviews? Where is the financial support of the victim? As noted above, violence against women is simply abhorrent. The abhorrence of that conduct has only been exacerbated in the last fortnight by a media that seems to only care about the victims of such violence if their alleged attacker runs around a sports field for a living. Shame on the television networks and media pundits who have created this situation and shame on our society that is so craving of news about “celebrities” that cases such as this are front page news.

I hope for a day when violence against women is not an issue in our society. I am sickened that I believe that that day will never come. I also hope for a day when all victims of such violence are treated fairly and with dignity not because their alleged attacker is a sports star but simply because they are a victim. Given the current state of the media, I have a similar fear that that day will also never be seen in our liftime.

NRL and ASADA: when did this become about unfairness?

I was listening to the Triple M rugby league show with Matthew Johns, among others, On Sunday afternoon and was more than a little irritated by the statement that ASADA’s proposed questioning of players who are alleged to have taken illegal substances was unfair particularly around State of Origin time. I was also irritated by the statement that the ASADA investigation was unfair on the Cronulla Sharks and that that was a reason for their poor start to the season.

This is not the first time I have heard these comments. Indeed from the rugby league I do watch and the commentary about it that I listen to and read it seems to be the prevailing opinion that ASADA has been grossly unfair in its investigation.

Firstly, I am in no way a defender of ASADA or the Crime Commission. I believe that the report issued jointly by them should have come AFTER an investigation into the use of illegal drugs in sport was finalised. This did not happen and now ASADA is investigating.

Secondly, it must be remembered that ASADA is a federal body investigating the illegal use of drugs in sport. If guilty the users will be suspended and, worse, condemned as cheats and worse still a game will be tarnished for years to come. They have not targeted anyone with malice or forthought, rather they are simply doing their jobs.

The stakes are obviously high and equally obviously ASADA needs to get its investigation right. If there is an allegation that is backed by some evidence then it is obvious that ASADA should, and in fact, must investigate. How is that in any way unfair? If the allegations are false then the players and club are cleared. If the allegations are true then, I repeat, the punishment will be severe.

Surely then those espousing the “unfairness” argument surrounding ASADA’s investigation would want them to investigate in their own time to ensure that: a. they get the investigation right; and b. if the club and players are innocent they are able to declare as much. An elongated investigation assists no one and only adds to the rumour and innuendo surrounding the code, the clubs and the players.

Would similar statements of unfairness be making made if the Sharks had have started the season 7-0 rather than 2-5? I am pretty sure the answer to that is no. There is empirical proof to back this: one only has to look at the conduct of the Essendon AFL club who are 5-0 and have been even more publicly embroiled in the drugs in sport controversy and the ASADA investigation. I mean the Bombers coach has been directly and personally implicated for goodness sake and they have continued to win.

I think the NRL and its players should consider themselves very lucky. In other jurisdictions sportsmen are stood down immediately upon an allegation of misuse of a banned substance made with the due process surrounding the investigation taking place AFTER the “ban” starts. The fact that the Sharks (and other teams’ players) are still able to play whilst under investigation should be seen as a postive for the NRL and indicative that they could be in a much worse position then they are now.

I believe that everyone is innocent until they are proven guilty. I equally agree that due process must be followed. The NRL’s “supporters” of the argument that ASADA is being unfair are seeking to change the rules of engagement by publicly arguing that the ongoing investigation is such. This victim mentality must stop because it is not serving anyone; NRL, players, media and ASADA alike well.

In fact I will go one step further: the NRL and its players MUST stop with its campaign to convince us that this investigation is unfair and they are victims in all of this because, simply, it is not and they are not. ASADA has a job to do and they should be allowed to do it without this unnecessary intervention.

Shumpty’s Punt: Another multi?

I know I proclaimed via twitter that I was retiring from tipping a sports multi each week. I lied! I can not resist thinking about sport during the week and I have again found myself focused on finding a winning multi bet this week. I promise that if this multi falls again at the first hurdle I will retire. I hope that I do not put the mocker on your team this week by selecting them in this multi:

Leg 1: Manly Sea Eagles to cover the line (-2.5 points) against the South Sydney Rabbitohs in the NRL at $1.92.

Leg 2: Queensland Reds to cover the line (-6.5 points) against the Auckland Blues in the Super 15 at $1.92.

Leg 3: Boston Celtics to defeat the New York Knicks in the NBA at $1.66.

Leg 4: Central Cheetahs to cover the line (-11.5 points) against the Southern Kings in the Super 15 at $1.92.

Leg 5: Canterbury Crusaders to cover the line (-22.5 points) against the Melbourne Rebels in the Super 15 at $1.92.

Total payout: $22.55 per dollar spent.

Declaration of interest: I have wagered $25 on this bet.

Warning: Please gamble responsibly. If you do not have the cash do not have a bet: it is as simple as that. If you feel like you have a problem please stick your hand up and seek assistance.

Have a great weekend: there is plenty of sport to watch afterall!

Shumpty’s Punt: the Weekend Multi

Another weekend and another loss of a multi in the first leg has not lowered by enthusiasm for this weekend’s multi which is as follows:

Leg 1: Los Angeles Angels to defeat the Houston Astros covering the line (-1.5 runs) in the MLB on Saturday morning ($2.10).

Leg 2: Auckland Blues to defeat the Hurricanes covering the line (-2.5 points) in the Super 15 on Saturday evening ($1.92).

Leg 3: Canberra Raiders to defeat the NZ Warriors covering the line (-6.0 points) in the NRL on Saturday evening ($1.92).

Leg 4: Cheetahs to cover the line against the Bulls (+5.5 points) in the Super 15 on Sunday morning ($1.92).

This multi will pay just under $15. In the interests of full disclosure I have invested $25.

Good luck, good punting and as always gamble responsibly.

Shumpty’s Punt: the weekend sports multi

It is has been a little while since I posted a weekend multi.  The fact is I was getting a little sick of being out of running on the multi bet after its first leg so banished myself to the wood shed for a couple of weeks to have long think about my betting strategy.  Getting the Mark Webber bet up two weekends ago made me start thinking about a multi again and a busy week of work got in the way of posting a multi last weekend.

If you are still reading after that self indulgent preamble, here is my sports multi for this week:

Leg 1: Melbourne Victory to defeat the Perth Glory in round one of the finals of the A League at home ($1.73)

Leg 2: Cronulla Sharks to cover the line (-5.5 points) against the Parramatta Eels at Parramatta Stadium in the NRL ($1.92)

Leg 3: Hurricanes to cover the line (-6.5 points) against the Waratahs at Westpac Stadium in the Super 15 ($1.92)

Leg 4: Pune Warriors to defeat the Sunrisers Hyderabad in the IPL ($1.70)

Leg 5: Stormers to defeat the Cheetahs at Free State Stadium in the Super 15 ($1.45)

All up this multi should pay over the $15 mark for every dollar invested (odds taken from sportsbet.com.au) and in the interests of full disclosure I have confess I have wagered $50 this week on this bet.

As always, please gamble within your means and responsibly.

The Australian Crime Commission and Sport: why issuing the report now was a mistake

Much has been made of the announcement by the Australian Crime Commission and the Ministers of the Crown for Sport and Justice about the findings of the recent ACC report into links between sport and the criminal underworld. Much has also been written about the report including the expected whispers about who is guilty and who is not guilty of the use of performance enhancers.

The press conference upon the issuing of the report and the portion of the report that has been made public (which, for the record, I have read cover to cover) were, with respect to all involved, replete with allegation and innuendo but lacking in hard evidence and, most importantly for the fans, the names of those “guilty” of using performance enhancing drugs in sport and, more worrying, the fixing of matches.

Now I agree with the legal position taken by the ACC: until the allegations are investigated and charges, be they internal within the sport in question or external before a court of proper jurisdiction, the naming of those alleged to be involved is absolutely wrong and likely to be prejudicial to any prosecution. The problem is though that in my view releasing the report without the same investigations being completed had the potential to, and indeed has, had the same effect.

What we have now is a whispering campaign of whodunit coupled with the codes focused on passing the buck between the themselves without really resolving who actually has contravened the laws of each such code or, more seriously, the relevant Crimes Act of each state. It beggars belief that the ACC and those same ministers of the crown did not think that this would happen. Australian’s love their sport and this was the only possible outcome to the release of a report which is, as I have noted above, scant on real detail and heavy on redacted summation.

I understand that the ACC was hoping that some offenders would come forward and admit their culpability in return for a lighter sentence. Frankly though that just smacks of an investigative body that does not actually have enough evidence now to take steps against the alleged offenders. If they did then the whispers would surely have not been needed to character assassinate whole clubs and codes: they simply could have said “this investigation is complete and here are the results” rather than “we have investigated but there is more investigation needed and we need help”.

For all of the powers of the ACC the impression that one is left with is that it is either a “toothless tiger” incapable of investigating what would seem to be a fairly simple series of allegations OR they were rushed to push out the report. Surely, as I have commented above, it was better to wait until there was something more concrete to actually report.

All in all my summation of things is that this has been handled in a poor fashion and the report was certainly released too soon. The impact of this is that the very risk that the ACC and the ministers sought to avoid, the inability to get a fair trial, is probably already upon us.

One final thought: upon my reading of all of the newspaper reports on this issue it reads like there are players from 7 clubs alleged to have taken PEDs or been involved in the conduct the subject of the investigation. For all of the hand wringing at the press conference, all of the “death of Australian sport” headlines and for of the press does that number seem strikingly low to you? On my count there are 50 professional sports teams across the winter codes and cricket in this country could it be that the bulk of that reporting has been beset with hyperbole? Has the ACC cried wolf and this is not as big a problem as the report would have one believe?

I for one will be watching with interest at the developments in the coming weeks.