So. Michael Clarke needs to break up with his fiancee Lara Bingle because it's getting in the way of his being Skipper of the Australian Cricket Team. So say high level cricketing type people.
I'm at a loss to understand this really. The man came home from tour to be with his fiancee in a time of personal turmoil for her (probably he came to end their relationship but I'm choosing to ignore that right now). Doesn't that make him a more rounded human being? Isn't that the sort of person we want heading up our sports teams?
And if having some rough patches in your personal life makes you unable to perform at your day job, be that sport or any other kind of day job, should these men not have wives and children then? After all, whose lives are ever problem free? Even if you remove partners and children, there's the overwhelmingness of depression and loneliness that could overcome someone. Or ... the pressure of job performance itself. Shouldn't we be better to focus our concern on support, mentoring and advice to get through the rough patches rather than advocating the abandonment of loved ones in times of trouble?
But here's the thing that I really don't get in this saga. To me, and if I'm wrong, do point out how, is the villain in this piece not the dirty, lowlife, gross football player, Brendan Fevola, who publicised private naked photos of Bingle, in one of the most disgraceful and disrepectful invasions of privacy? There seems to have been a cursatory day or two of discussion in the media about him, the AFL is to investigate his behaviour and then days and days of discussion about Bingle, her behaviour, the company she keeps and her love of fame and the media.
For Fevola, the AFL has made this statement:We find unacceptable any behaviour of taking a photo of a woman without her consent and circulating that, it's completely unacceptable from an AFL point of view,"
And"There have been some court proceedings that have been foreshadowed and we'll monitor those as well. But at the end of the day, the basic principle of respect towards women requires that there aren't photos taken without their consent that are then circulated."
As far as Fevola's footy team are concerned, the issue is whether he did this *recently*:
in WA Today:The Brisbane Lions coach has backed his star recruit in the wake of the Bingle nude photo saga, saying he believes Fevola's explanation that he didn't circulate the image recently
Bingle, the bikini-model fiance of Australian cricket vice-captain Michael Clarke, is reportedly taking legal action against Fevola after the publication of a semi-nude photo of her in the shower taken when the pair had an affair in 2006.
The photo was rumoured to have done the rounds of the AFL and various cricketers over recent years before finding its way into Woman's Day this week, prompting Bingle's agent Max Markson to marshal the lawyers.
And this comes back to a very crucial issue we have been in discussion about recently. Does it matter *when* you did something? Is the impact of what he has done - an extreme violation of an ex-girlfriend's privacy and respect - less because he didn't do it *recently*?
Not for me.
And has it only become an action that requires "sanction" now that Bingle (and the rest of the country) have found out that he was circulating this photo to his friends and colleagues?
I'd hope not but the message being sent seems otherwise.