OT: Around the NHL: The Countdown to Camp

[Jaded-Fan]

Ben was still suspended for a quarter of the season. And the league suspended Voynov long before he was found guilty. If there are charges filed and the league doesn't suspend Kane at all it won't look good.

I realize that Darth mentioned him likely gone in the post I quoted before making my statement. But I was more addressing the rush to judgment people make about these kind of cases, often wrongly so.

I shouldn't have used Darth's quote to make that point, it confused things.

My two points.

1. To not rush to judgment.
2. That athletes need to be more aware of the target that they have on their backs and not put themselves into situations where they can either get themselves into trouble or get set up.

Just like absent a Title 7 violation I can pretty much fire anyone I want to for any reason (everyone with blue eyes, beat it! You're fired! Those wearing one of these that goes triple for you:

So too can a sports league suspend for any reason allowed under the CBA.

That has zero to do with me or you or anyone else rushing to judgment and my cautioning against it. We have seen enough false cases to make such caution wise.

 

[Asuna]

Anaheim signs Silfverberg to a 4 year deal. 3.8m cap hit.

There we go. Use that money so you can't sign Despres.

 

[66-30-33]

Anaheim signs Silfverberg to a 4 year deal. 3.8m cap hit.

There we go. Use that money so you can't sign Despres.

Kunitz, Scuds, Dupuis for Despres, Fowler, Silfverberg.

 

[Asuna]

Kunitz, Scuds, Dupuis for Despres, Fowler, Silfverberg.

Nah. Anaheim has to add their first too.

 

[66-30-33]

Nah. Anaheim has to add their first too.

Now we will have their 1st AND 2nd.

 

[Ogrezilla]

If there's enough to bring formal charges and a trial, most likely he'll be gone. He'll get Voynoved.

The Blackhawks shouldn't stick up for him in that case either.

The Blackhawks and the NHL should basically stay out of it, and then base their decision on what the court decides. If he's charged, goes to trial and found not guilty, why shouldn't the Blackhawks support him?

 

[Ally22]

Pro Athletes should have learned by now the target that they walk around with every day and getting a little bit of honey while out drunk somewhere is like playing with a loaded gun.

Ahhh yes, us "little bits of honey" as you so tastefully put it are definitely on the prowl to ensnare us a man.

Never have athletes used their fame and power to take advantage of women. That would be ridiculous.

Maybe some pro athletes should know better to not be dirtbags instead

 

[tom_servo]

I'd say it's more likely that a rich athlete feels entitled around women than he has a "target" on his back.

I'd wager that there are many more examples of unreported improper behavior/assault than there are of complete fabrication.

 

[TorstenFrings]

I came in here wanting to post that I was over at the main boards thread, and I was really pleased to see a lot of Pens fans who were posting the right things and was so glad to be among good company and I see your posts.

Ditto.

The majority of posters did restore my faith though. Mostly.

 

[Darth Vitale]

Gotta love middle of nowhere towns whose existence is built around HS football and deifying the star players. "What were you THINKING about out there?!" "Rapin'." Whoever wrote that script should be given a major award (just not a sexy leg lamp).

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

I'd say it's more likely that a rich athlete feels entitled around women than he has a "target" on his back.

I'd wager that there are many more examples of unreported improper behavior/assault than there are of complete fabrication.

Your second point is basically the conclusion of every study on sexual assault allegations.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I'd say it's more likely that a rich athlete feels entitled around women than he has a "target" on his back.

I'd wager that there are many more examples of unreported improper behavior/assault than there are of complete fabrication.

Why can't it be both?

Are there dirt ball athletes? Oh hell yes. Are there some recent infamous cases where there have been egg on the faces of the reporting and prosecuting? Also yes.

Which was pretty much my point. None of us know what happened so reserve judgment.

In England for example there are serious restrictions on what you can, and can not, report in the media until the trial ends.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/journalism/article/art20130702112133630

I always thought that was a much more fair way to go.

 

[Griffin6612]

Why can't it be both?

Are there dirt ball athletes? Oh hell yes. Are there some recent infamous cases where there have been egg on the faces of the reporting and prosecuting? Also yes.

Which was pretty much my point. None of us know what happened so reserve judgment.

In England for example there are serious restrictions on what you can, and can not, report in the media until the trial ends.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/journalism/article/art20130702112133630

I always thought that was a much more fair way to go.

The percentage of dirt ball athletes is higher than the percentage of women who dream of ruining a persons life for self gain I would think. Cases of the latter I would say are much rarer and are remembered as different from the sea of football players doing something wrong.

Also, not just athletes, but musicians, movies, politicians, ect. All seem to have too many cases of "entitlement".

But I agree on reporting and media being out of control. Innocent till proven guilty is an American standard, but media convicts both sides too quickly with no knowledge.

 

[systemsgo]

The Blackhawks and the NHL should basically stay out of it, and then base their decision on what the court decides. If he's charged, goes to trial and found not guilty, why shouldn't the Blackhawks support him?

I think not sticking up for him isn't the same as supporting him. Just as being found not guilty is not the same as innocent.

In rape cases, a lot of the times it never goes to trial or doesn't result in a conviction because it's hard to prove. Depending on the news of what happened, I personally would not rely on the courts opinion to decide for myself if he's guilty or not. Just like with OJ.

 

[Ogrezilla]

I think not sticking up for him isn't the same as supporting him. Just as being found not guilty is not the same as innocent.

In rape cases, a lot of the times it never goes to trial or doesn't result in a conviction because it's hard to prove. Depending on the news of what happened, I personally would not rely on the courts opinion to decide for myself if he's guilty or not. Just like with OJ.

so he should just be treated like he's guilty regardless?

There's a reason people are innocent until proven guilty. I'd rather treat too many guilty people like they're innocent than too many innocent people like they're guilty.

 

[systemsgo]

so he should just be treated like he's guilty regardless?

There's a reason people are innocent until proven guilty. I'd rather treat too many guilty people like they're innocent than too many innocent people like they're guilty.

No? People are free to make up their minds about what happened and "treat" him however they wish to, it's not like most of us would have proper contact with him anyway. In the end, a jury is just made up of people. 12 people can believe one thing, but the 13th one could believe something else. I'm saying that I will form my own opinions based on the facts that come out instead of relying on the courts opinion and anyone else should do the same if they wish to.

Someone who goes to the hospital to get a rape kit done is brave, many don't go because they're scared they won't be believed, and it's traumatic. And for those who do, 400,000 rape kits were untested in 2013 (link). That's your justice system at work and it doesn't make me give all the accuseds the benefit of the doubt, it makes me think that the justice system doesn't care.

 

[Speaking Moistly]

so he should just be treated like he's guilty regardless?

I mean... OJ was declared not guilty and Michael Jackson got way with it when to everyone except his crazy fans it's obvious that he was a pedophile. Casey Anthony, George Zimmerman, R. Kelly and a lot of celebrities. So I wouldn't act like the courts are infallible, especially when fame and really good lawyers are involved, it's something that people will decide for themselves if they need to. Rape cases are pretty ****ed up in how the process goes anyway, in itself it's legitimately messed up.

Bill Cosby still has people defending him, ffs

There's a reason people are innocent until proven guilty. I'd rather treat too many guilty people like they're innocent than too many innocent people like they're guilty.

That's a very broad statement to make.

Innocent until proven guilty is also a court of law thing, the court of public opinion isn't held to that so I always find it odd when it's used as a standard. We're constantly deciding people are guilty of things until someone thinks it's valid to toss out innocent until proven guilty.

 

[systemsgo]

And if you're giving everyone who's being investigated or charged with crimes the same benefit of the doubt, then I'm glad you're someone who can do that. But if you ask the average man on the street, they'll give the famous person more of a benefit of the doubt than say the black guy in a hoodie, spanish guy with tattoos, a white guy who looks like he's in a motorcycle gang. And I apologise if this is too political (or racially sensitive), but Kane doesn't deserve more of a benefit of the doubt than the others.

I'm not saying you're doing this because I don't know you, but I find some people who're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but are quick to convict others incredibly hypocritical.

 

[Ogrezilla]

No? People are free to make up their minds about what happened and "treat" him however they wish to, it's not like most of us would have proper contact with him anyway. In the end, a jury is just made up of people. 12 people can believe one thing, but the 13th one could believe something else. I'm saying that I will form my own opinions based on the facts that come out instead of relying on the courts opinion and anyone else should do the same if they wish to.

Fair enough I guess. But when it comes to the team (his employer) it seems incredibly irresponsible to use their opinion over that of the court. They certainly shouldn't have grounds to terminate his contract if he's found not guilty. If they want to trade him, by all means.

Someone who goes to the hospital to get a rape kit done is brave, many don't go because they're scared they won't be believed, and it's traumatic. And for those who do, 400,000 rape kits were untested in 2013 (link). That's your justice system at work and it doesn't make me give all the accuseds the benefit of the doubt, it makes me think that the justice system doesn't care.

Yeah, it sucks. But again, I'd rather let some guilty people go free if it helps keep innocent people from being convicted of crimes they didn't commit.

I mean... OJ was declared not guilty and Michael Jackson got way with it when to everyone except his crazy fans it's obvious that he was a pedophile. Casey Anthony, George Zimmerman, R. Kelly and a lot of celebrities. So I wouldn't act like the courts are infallible, especially when fame and really good lawyers are involved, it's something that people will decide for themselves if they need to. Rape cases are pretty ****ed up in how the process goes anyway, in itself it's legitimately messed up.

Bill Cosby still has people defending him, ffs

Sure, if there's enough evidence to actually convince people that he's guilty, that's a different story. But a few cases where a guy got away with it doesn't change my opinion on the matter.

That's a very broad statement to make.

Innocent until proven guilty is also a court of law thing, the court of public opinion isn't held to that so I always find it odd when it's used as a standard. We're constantly deciding people are guilty of things until someone thinks it's valid to toss out innocent until proven guilty.

Maybe it should be. Maybe not to the same degree of evidence as a court, but too many people just see an accusation and immediately assume the person is guilty. Innocent people's lives get ruined by **** that never even amounts to an actual charge. Even when it comes out that the person is completely innocent (not just a not-guilty decision, but legitimate proof that they didn't' do it), the damage is often already done. That **** bothers me far more than a guilty person being let go.

 

[Ogrezilla]

And if you're giving everyone who's being investigated or charged with crimes the same benefit of the doubt, then I'm glad you're someone who can do that. But if you ask the average man on the street, they'll give the famous person more of a benefit of the doubt than say the black guy in a hoodie, spanish guy with tattoos, a white guy who looks like he's in a motorcycle gang. And I apologise if this is too political (or racially sensitive), but Kane doesn't deserve more of a benefit of the doubt than the others.

I'm not saying you're doing this because I don't know you, but I find some people who're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but are quick to convict others incredibly hypocritical.

Of course he doesn't.

 

[Ogrezilla]

At this point, people know practically nothing about this story. But there are a lot of people ready to call Kane guilty already. That's what bothers me.

Is there a grey area as far as evidence goes that would be enough to legitimately sway my thoughts on him but not be enough to convict him? Probably. But that evidence certainly hasn't surfaced yet.

Look, I think Patrick Kane is a dirtbag. From anything I know about him, I don't like him. That doesn't mean I think he's a rapist just yet.

 

[Penguinator]

Of course he doesn't.

The power of cash (best lawers/settlements) & fame (connections) can buy you that though.

Testify!

 

[Penguinator]

Evidence can be buried with corruption or settlements so it never comes out.

 

[Ogrezilla]

Evidence can be buried with corruption or settlements so it never comes out.

so if he settles or is found not-guilty, should we just assume that's what happened?

Is there even a charge against him yet?

 

[Speaking Moistly]

At this point, people know practically nothing about this story. But there are a lot of people ready to call Kane guilty already. That's what bothers me.

Is there a grey area as far as evidence goes that would be enough to legitimately sway my thoughts on him but not be enough to convict him? Probably. But that evidence certainly hasn't surfaced yet.

Look, I think Patrick Kane is a dirtbag. From anything I know about him, I don't like him. That doesn't mean I think he's a rapist just yet.

And there's a lot of people saying he's innocent already. Everyone should be in and around the middle right now but let's not act like it isn't much more complicated than that.