Canadian Government Freezing Hockey Canada Funding- (2018 Canada World Jr Team Alleged Sexual Assault) PART 2

[AchtzehnBaby]

Part 2 continued from here

Canadian Government Freezing Hockey Canada Funding- (2018 Canada World Jr Team Alleged Sexual Assault)

Too little, too late, by the rape-enablers at Hockey Canada. After doing their level best to protect rape-enabling culture in hockey for years to decades. No one who wants to see true progress is going to want rapist-enablers involved in begrudgingly fixing their own abhorrent mess. "Hockey...

forums.hfboards.com

Please stay on topic - do NOT delve into OT politics

Let's work to keep this thread open for discussion and not go down the rabbit hole of mudslinging at others opinions.

Those who can't follow the rules will be threadbanned.

Remember forum rules 4 and 8

4) Threadjacking/OT/Politics: Posts that waste space or time on the site, annoy users due to characteristics or repetition, disrupt the site functionality, or cause threads to veer off topic may be considered “threadjacking/OT”. This also applies to signatures, user titles, avatars, profile fields, and so forth. Stay on topic as much as possible. Post new threads in the appropriate forum only. Political discussion is not permitted on the forums except within the narrowly defined scope of hockey-related matters.

8) Claims of Insider Information/ Rumors & Hearsay: If you're an insider, contact us with proof BEFORE you post. These posts will be allowed/rejected at the discretion of administrators after consulting with other posters, moderators, and relevant sources. Deference will be given to veteran members who have established credibility. It's not acceptable to post that you heard someone has a drinking/drug/sex/personal problem from a "good" source. Do not post information that can be considered defamatory without a link to a credible media source. Other forums, personal websites, amateur/unvetted blogs, hearsay, and personal testimonials are not considered credible.

Click to read more...

 

[AchtzehnBaby]

 

[AchtzehnBaby]

 

[CanHeDoIt99]

 

[LT]

Good.

 

[Pink Mist]

Thats how it always should have been for investigations of allegations this severe.

Does Hockey Canada activities flow down to amateur / youth hockey after they retire? For example if they were to take up coaching?

 

[4thline]

For all you "BUT THEY STARTED A 3RD PARTY INVESTIGATION" folks.

No. No. They hired a defense lawyer and sic'd them on the complainant, got recommendations on how to get out of this unscathed.

Subpoena that report and all related communications.

 

[DaveMatthew]

Thats how it always should have been for investigations of allegations this severe.

Does Hockey Canada activities flow down to amateur / youth hockey after they retire? For example if they were to take up coaching?

Hockey Canada is basically responsible for the entirety of organized hockey infrastructure in Canada. If you want to become certified as a youth coach, whether you're a hockey parent or former pro player, that process runs through Hockey Canada.

 

[Pink Mist]

Hockey Canada is basically responsible for the entirety of organized hockey infrastructure in Canada. If you want to become certified as a youth coach, whether you're a hockey parent or former pro players, that process runs through Hockey Canada.

So effectively it would be a ban from participation representing the team internationally or in future coaching endeavors in Canada

 

[DaveMatthew]

So effectively it would be a ban from participation representing the team internationally or in future coaching endeavors in Canada

I'd assume so, yes. Ban from playing, coaching, running certified camps, etc.

 

[CanHeDoIt99]

For all you "BUT THEY STARTED A 3RD PARTY INVESTIGATION" folks.

No. No. They hired a defense lawyer and sic'd them on the complainant, got recommendations on how to get out of this unscathed.

Have to say as well, and perhaps there is an answer to this question - but I was pretty confused nobody pushed the HH partner on why they refused to pursue interviews with the remaining 9 players who did not initially have interviews.

I understand the answer given regarding not having the statement from the woman involved, but they interviewed the 10 other players who initially didn't show any issues cooperating, WITHOUT the statement. What makes these 9 players different in terms of why or why not they would be able to interview them without a statement from the victim?

 

[4thline]

Have to say as well, and perhaps there is an answer to this question - but I was pretty confused nobody pushed the HH partner on why they refused to pursue interviews with the remaining 9 players who did not initially have interviews.

I understand the answer given regarding not having the statement from the woman involved, but they interviewed the 10 other players who initially didn't show any issues cooperating, WITHOUT the statement. What makes these 9 players different in terms of why or why not they would be able to interview them without a statement from the victim?

@MXD how would/will the mechanics of client attorney privilege work if player X is/was charged, and HH (with Hockey Canada as their client) is called to submit documents/ testify regarding statements made by the player to HH?

The way I see it is pretty binary, either that information is protected, and this whole exercise is a sham. Or the information is not protected, and the player participation will be heavily sanitized, with their own lawyers present treating HH like the prosecution, and this whole exercise is going to go nowhere.

 

[MikeK]

I don't think we've scratched the surface here. Things are going to get real ugly for all those involved and those who dismissed or covered up. A lot of players and personnel we know and love today are going to have their reputations and legacy tarnished forever over this.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

Thats how it always should have been for investigations of allegations this severe.

Does Hockey Canada activities flow down to amateur / youth hockey after they retire? For example if they were to take up coaching?

I would imagine it would.

 

[Angry Little Elf]

I don't think we've scratched the surface here. Things are going to get real ugly for all those involved and those who dismissed or covered up. A lot of players and personnel we know and love today are going to have their reputations and legacy tarnished forever over this.

We should not have deified these athletes. That’s what enabled this kind of behaviour. They get told they are special their whole lives which makes them become entitled.

 

[4thline]

"As a matter of due process, I could not interview players without giving them fair notice of what was alleged against them."

In the context of a "3rd party investigator" with a "mandate to find the truth of what happened" this is some deep deep bullshit.

Translates to "HH, in consultation with the counsel for the players, recommended to HC that without detailed accusations from which the accused can prepare plausible counterstory, that it is in the best interests of everyone involved that no one say anything."

 

[MXD]

@MXD how would/will the mechanics of client attorney privilege work if player X is/was charged, and HH (with Hockey Canada as their client) is called to submit documents/ testify regarding statements made by the player to HH?

The way I see it is pretty binary, either that information is protected, and this whole exercise is a sham. Or the information is not protected, and the player participation will be heavily sanitized, with their own lawyers present treating HH like the prosecution, and this whole exercise is going to go nowhere.

Is the communication between the player and HH in any way related to the contractual relation between HC and HH (which is the source of why HH is asked to submit documents)? AKA, is HH otherwise defending the charged player?

Going on principle, without really looking into it, and with no relevant experience other than theory :
If the above is no : Absolutely not (but the charge itself is/will be public).
If the above is yes : HC can waive, though it could probably request, and obtain, redactions (names and more incriminating statements)

 

[I am toxic]

"As a matter of due process, I could not interview players without giving them fair notice of what was alleged against them."

In the context of a "3rd party investigator" with a "mandate to find the truth of what happened" this is some deep deep bullshit.

Translates to "HH, in consultation with the counsel for the players, recommended to HC that without detailed accusations from which the accused can prepare plausible counterstory, that it is in the best interests of everyone involved that no one say anything."

HH interviewed ten of the nineteen players.

Why was HH unable to interview nine of the players without fair notice, but they were able to interview ten players also without fair notice?

Is HH saying that the allegations involve these nine players, and that they have known the identity of the accused for years now?

And for the record, I am not asking for any speculation on player names. None. Zero.

Rather I am asking for clarification on whether we have been lied to once more, that the accused are unknown, when it appears they may have known for years now.

 

[4thline]

Is the communication between the player and HH in any way related to the contractual relation between HC and HH (which is the source of why HH is asked to submit documents)? AKA, is HH otherwise defending the charged player?

Going on principle, without really looking into it, and with no relevant experience other than theory :
If the above is no : Absolutely not (but the charge itself is/will be public).
If the above is yes : HC can waive, though it could probably request, and obtain, redactions (names and more incriminating statements)

Thanks.

So would it be fair to say that the implicated/remaining players' "participation" will be heavily coached, with their council present, and that this "3rd party investigation" is unlikely to lead anywhere, and accomplish anything other than drawing media attention?

 

[MXD]

Why was HH unable to interview nine of the players without fair notice, but they were able to interview ten players also without fair notice?

The 9 players probably just declined.

HH had to give a fair notice to the players they'd be interviewing, but not to the players it wouldn't be.

Thanks.

So would it be fair to say that the implicated/remaining players' "participation" will be heavily coached, with their council present, and that this "3rd party investigation" is unlikely to lead anywhere, and accomplish anything other than drawing media attention?

It's definitely the likeliest outcome, though I suppose a player could fully collaborate on his own.

 

[4thline]

HH interviewed ten of the nineteen players.

Why was HH unable to interview nine of the players without fair notice, but they were able to interview ten players also without fair notice?

Is HH saying that the allegations involve these nine players, and that they have known the identity of the accused for years now?

Nahhh they didn't know the identity of the accused. They knew the identity of the players that it would be legally beneficial for HC to avoid having any statement on record from

The 9 players probably just declined.

HH had to give a fair notice to the players they'd be interviewing, but not to the players it wouldn't be.

But what he's pointing out is that they DID interview 10 players without the accuser's statement, which is supposedly the reason they didn't pursue interviewing the other 9.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/hockey-canada-investigator-committee-1.6532137

 

[I am toxic]

Nahhh they didn't know the identity of the accused. They knew the identity of the players that it would be legally beneficial for HC to avoid having any statement on record from


But what he's pointing out is that they DID interview 10 players without the accuser's statement, which is supposedly the reason they didn't pursue interviewing the other 9.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/hockey-canada-investigator-committee-1.6532137

From your linked cbc article:

A third party investigator hired by Hockey Canada to look into an alleged group sexual assault said players who don't participate in her investigation will be banned from Hockey Canada for life — and that many players she hasn't interviewed are worried that Hockey Canada and some politicians have pre-judged them guilty.

If she doesn't know who the accused are, how does she know they are worried?

If she does know who the accused are but hasn't interviewed them, how does she know they are worried?

I think we are being lied to. I think they know who the accused are, and they have known for years.

And for the record, I am not asking for any speculation on player names. None. Zero.

Rather I am asking for clarification on whether we have been lied to once more, that the accused are unknown, when it appears they may have known for years now.

 

[Voight]

Thats how it always should have been for investigations of allegations this severe.

Does Hockey Canada activities flow down to amateur / youth hockey after they retire? For example if they were to take up coaching?

If it does, it would only affect guys wanting to coach minor hockey (and maybe Canadian university teams). The ban would have 0 effect on their coaching career if they went to the CHL/NHL/AHL etc.

 

[CanHeDoIt99]

Nahhh they didn't know the identity of the accused. They knew the identity of the players that it would be legally beneficial for HC to avoid having any statement on record from


But what he's pointing out is that they DID interview 10 players without the accuser's statement, which is supposedly the reason they didn't pursue interviewing the other 9.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/hockey-canada-investigator-committee-1.6532137

I understand HH is in a tougher position here because the investigation is ongoing, and I agree that divulging too much information would potentially taint their ability to interview other witnesses, but this just felt like such a ridiculous claim today to me.

Its probably a combination/less complicated calculus decision, something like the police closed their investigation (perhaps nothing here), + the complainant not wanting to cooperate + the player's lawyers likely putting up a wall post criminal investigation claiming there is no need given they haven't been charged etc that caused them all to put their hands up and say "well, its pretty much handled, so whatever".

The problem is when you portray yourself as "truth seekers", you can't rely on the above calculus the way it looks like they may have.

Happy to be wrong/missing something - but I just don't see how they can bend the logic saying they can interview 10 players and all the coaches/staff without the victim's statement, but they can't interview the other 9.

 

[red devil]

Sheldon Kennedy calls on Smith the leadership team and the board to resign immediately