Top academic slams ‘woke’ Sydney Swans leadership for banning five players over alleged sex assault scandal: ‘A needless over-reaction’

An Australian Catholic University Senior Fellow has criticised the Sydney Swans’ decision to suspend five players, calling the punishment a ‘needless over-reaction’ designed to appease ‘woke sentiments’.

Conservative educator and author Kevin Donnelly AM took aim at the sanctions imposed on Isaac Heeney, Chad Warner, Nick Blakey, James Jordon and Riley Bice following the club’s investigation into events at a Melbourne hotel.

All five players have been ruled out for the remainder of the AFL season, including the finals, after Sydney determined their behaviour had fallen seriously short of club standards.

The AFL endorsed the sanctions and confirmed the players would not be considered for selection in the All-Australian squad.

However, Donnelly argued the punishment was excessive.

‘The decision to suspend Isaac Heeny, Chad Warner, Nick Blakey, James Jordon and Riley Bice for the rest of the AFL season is wrong,’ he posted on X.

‘A needless over-reaction to appease woke sentiments intent on naming and shaming.’

The five players were sanctioned following an incident at the Pullman East Melbourne that triggered a Victoria Police investigation into a report of sexual assault.

None of the players have been arrested or charged.

The Swans and AFL have repeatedly stressed that the club’s disciplinary process is separate from the continuing police investigation.

Sydney Swans chief executive Matthew Pavlich said the suspensions related to decisions made by the players after the club’s win over Essendon at the MCG.

‘It was staying out late, it was drinking, it was continuing their night, it was bringing women back to the hotel,’ Pavlich said.

‘It was a long way short of what we expect from our players and we’re holding them to a really high standard, but they were well short of anything near that standard.’

Australian author Daniel Best challenged Donnelly’s criticism, arguing the Swans knew more about the events than members of the public.

‘Kev, the Swans board have clearly gone and spoken to all the players concerned,’ Best replied.

‘They know exactly what happened on the night in question. They’ve made their assessment on a few grounds, the ones they’ve made public involve a breach of curfew, bringing women back to the room and drinking. The other factors they’re not saying.

‘The club have made the decision based on what they know, which is more than you, or I, know.

‘You might not like it, but as the employer of the players, they have the right to suspend them as they see fit.

‘But, by all means, go on with your rage baiting.’

Donnelly maintained the punishment was an overreaction and asked Best to identify the precise rules the players had broken.

‘Hi Daniel, still an over reaction,’ he responded.

‘Can you please be explicit about what aspects of the code have been breached. Eg, it was admitted, there is no curfew deadline.’

The Swans have not publicly said the players breached a formal curfew.

Pavlich said the possible introduction of a curfew would be a matter for coach Dean Cox, his staff and the playing group.

Donnelly’s intervention divided social media users, although many rejected his argument and supported the club’s right to punish the players for their admitted conduct.

‘They are not good role models and they’ve been caught out,’ one person wrote.

Another responded: ‘No, Kevin, it’s for breaking club rules. They didn’t follow club guidelines, this is nothing to do with any criminal case.’

A third asked: ‘What did you want the Swans management to do instead Kevin?’

Another commenter argued that Donnelly’s criticism incorrectly combined the club’s disciplinary process with the separate police investigation.

‘I think the Club’s decision to suspend the players was for breaching club/teams rules ie out late at night drinking etc and had nothing to do with any allegations regarding the females (which is still under investigation),’ they wrote.

‘On that basis the club has every right to act as they have. Part 2 will be determined by VicPol.’

Another added: ‘Didn’t the club suspend them for their drinking and fraternising with women, which they evidently did, and not because they were guilty of anything illegal?’

One commenter, who described themselves as ‘as anti woke as the next 59 year old’, also backed the suspensions.

‘The suspension is not about the accusations being dealt with by the police – it is about a group that are professional athletes who have great privilege and great responsibility ending up a week before finals in a hotel room at 4am,’ they wrote.

‘They should not have put themselves in that position.’

Others questioned whether such a severe punishment was justified before the allegations had been fully investigated.

‘Have the accusations been proven or have those players admitted their guilt?’ one person asked.

Another suggested docking the players’ pay would have punished them without severely damaging the club’s premiership campaign.

‘Suspending them punishes the whole club the vast majority of whom are completely innocent, together with millions of fans who want to see a fair contest in the finals,’ they wrote.

Sydney chairman Andrew Pridham acknowledged that the decision could destroy the club’s premiership hopes but said that demonstrated how seriously officials regarded the conduct.

‘To effectively torpedo our season by making a decision such as this just tells you how seriously we’re taking it,’ Pridham said.

The players subsequently issued a joint statement saying they were ‘deeply sorry to everyone involved’ and accepted that their behaviour had fallen short of the club’s standards.