Hello and welcome to Zero Hanger's coverage of Thursday's AFL Appeal Board hearing regarding St Kilda's Lance Collard and his alleged use of a homophobic slur in a VFL match in March.
The Saints are contesting a nine-week suspension (two weeks suspended until the end of 2027) that was handed down by the Tribunal.
Follow live below...
Live: Collard's ban upheld but penalty reduced
Verdict: Lance Collard's charge has been upheld by the Appeal Board, but his sanction has been reduced to four weeks (two weeks suspended), with the Board determining the initial penalty was "manifestly excessive". The two weeks are suspended until the end of 2027.
"We describe it (the initial penalty) as crippling because there was evidence before the Tribunal in the sanction in both hearings that a penalty of this extent would finish him off as a player of professional football," Will Houghton KC said.
"Firstly, his previous misconduct in 2024 was more serious and probably far more serious than the present affairs."
6.45pm Will Houghton KC is delivering the verdict.
6.25pm The Appeal Board is now deliberating.
6.05pm Andrew Woods SC (AFL) clarifies the witnesses' evidence. "It was said that (Frankston players) Hipwell and Lambert agreed they discussed and got their story straight. They agreed that they discussed it. They certainly didn't go anywhere near agreeing that there was any collusion of any kind or cross-contamination," Woods said.
5.56pm Acting for the AFL, Andrew Woods SC claims St Kilda's efforts to challenge the initial verdict have been "valiant" but "ultimately don't have any basis".
5.53pm Borsky believes a sanction similar to that handed down to Clarkson is reasonable. "There should be a substantial fine and only alternatively a four-week suspension, two of which are suspended," Borsky said.
5.50pm Borsky claims the nine-match penalty (seven, plus two suspended) is "manifestly excessive", referencing the 2004 Alastair Clarkson, where the North Melbourne coach was fined for using the word "c***sucker".
5.40pm Furthermore, Borsky challenges the reliability and honesty of the witnesses (Hipwell and Lambert). He asks how it can be proven that there were two independent witnesses, as Frankston players Hipwell and Lambert spoke to each other about what they would say.
5.30pm The Saints argue the Tribunal could not be comfortably satisfied Collard used the alleged 'f word', given the player has repeatedly denied the allegation and there is no audio evidence available.
5.16pm Borsky claims the AFL should have used rule 35 (the Peek Rule, regarding Discrimination and Racial Vilification) instead of rule 2.3(a). "Was the correct avenue for the AFL to pursue this sort of conduct, and was it the only correct avenue? And because the AFL proceeded under the wrong charge, it ought to be dismissed," Borsky said.
5.05pm St Kilda's legal representative and board member, Michael Borsky KC, claims an on-field comment that isn't picked up via microphones, and is aimed towards a player that is not offended, is far removed from what the conduct unbecoming rule addresses.
5.00pm A good start, we're away on time! The million-dollar question is, what time will we finish?
At the time of this comment – the “5.16pm argument is the latest post.
I had thought the main argument is that Lance did not use the stated word.
I was further of the understanding that:
1). there is no “audio” or any other “evidence” other than “he said he said”
2) .The “reported” or alleged” offensive word was “faggot”.
3). The word Lance claimed to have said was “maggot”.
I am further of the understanding that in football circles, “maggot” is a very commonly used word (sledge)….. used as an insult without “swear words”……. normally against umpires admittedly. But nonetheless it is a very common football “sledge”.
I leave it to the reader to determine if these two words “rhyme” or “sound the same”.
So without audio, and in an environment devoid of absolute silence, the question is if it’s possible to mishear one word for the other…..
For the tribunal or any other body to “decide” that one word was said in the absence of corroborated evidence – is at best an arbitrary, subjective opinion.
Much in the same a manner as an umpire awarding a free kick to Cripps because Cripps struck Peatling and hurt his pinky in the process…. the only difference is, of course, the video clearly shows the umpire made that arbitrary, subjective opinion.
There is also argument for a “biased” element in the Cripps decision as well as it being completely unfounded (is he an umpire’s favourite?).
There is also argument for bias in the Lance Collard “decision”….. at a couple of levels.
So there were “witnesses”?
…. but they colluded (talked about it regarding what they would say”)?
Such “evidence would be inadmissible in a court of law…..