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

[DaveMatthew]

Beyond any reasonable doubt, which in this case likely means the case will go nowhere unless multiple witnesses testify the same incriminating accounts of the events.

It seems unlikely that a criminal case will be pursued.

The question is what amount of evidence will the NHL require to dole out its own punishment, and whether they're able to gather that evidence during their investigation.

The standard to have a player(s) suspended will be much lower than it would be to bring criminal charges.

 

[Deuce22]

Beyond any reasonable doubt, which in this case likely means the case will go nowhere unless multiple witnesses testify the same incriminating accounts of the events.

Agree in principle, but this isn't reality. People want their pound of flesh without even knowing what happened.

 

[CostPerRebuild]

Maintaining a general liability fund is "business as usual", just like a line item for paper or printer toner.

That is the case at every organization.

If it's used to pay off allegations of a sexual nature every year its not a general liability budget anymore.
Once you have identified a risk and it is recurring, you cannot hide behind that anymore.

edit: redundant word and added details

 

[BondraTime]

There will be no criminal charges.

The NHL and the specific teams will have the looming pressure over accused players, where they go from there is to be determined from the investigation. With the reach this is getting, it’s going to be tough for teams and the league to sit on their hands.

 

[Paper]

Beyond any reasonable doubt, which in this case likely means the case will go nowhere unless multiple witnesses testify the same incriminating accounts of the events.

This is BS. You don’t need a beyond a reasonable doubt level of certainty to assign blame or “punishment” in any situation but a criminal case. Even a civil case only requires that it was more probable than not (50%+1)

 

[K1984]

If it's used to pay off allegations of a sexual nature every year its not a general liability budget anymore.
Once you have identified a risk and it is recurring, you cannot hide behind that anymore.

edit: redundant word and added details

(If) no action was taken to prevent abuse cases, then that is the crime, not creation of a liability fund. Whether they built a fund or not, they are paying for it either way. It's an irrelevant detail.

 

[Tyrus]

This is BS. You don’t need a beyond a reasonable doubt level of certainty to assign blame or “punishment” in any situation but a criminal case. Even a civil case only requires that it was more probable than not (50%+1)

Well yeah, my comment was answering what the burden of proof "should be", my answer pertains to what it should be in the case of criminal litigations.

If there aren't any criminal litigations pursued, then there won't be any need for burden of proof since this has already been settled as a civil case. Unless I'm mistaken and a second civil case could be pursued, which I don't think is the case.

 

[I am toxic]

Why do you sound so angry? Maybe I misunderstood what you said, not sure why you need to be so hostile.

I just see a lot of people constantly saying 'hockey has tons of problems' as if society and humanity in general isn't a mess.

Maybe???

I don't refer to bullshit like yours as bullshit because I am angry or hostile, I refer to bullshit like yours as bullshit because I am . . . I am . . . well, you know. It's a schtick.

Just admit that you knowingly resorted to dishonest debating techniques, that you are doubling down here with false accusations that I am somehow angry or hostile about your worthless posts, then apologize, then publicly commit to being better when debating.

Hockey has a toxic culture problem. It is far greater than the same problem within society at large because of the violence inherent in the game, and the abhorrent notion of brotherhood/us vs them and the code of silence that is found in toxic hockey culture that is not found in society in general. This is not open for debate with me in this thread, Hockey Canada themselves has very publicly acknowledged the toxic culture, and anyone who denies or deflects with whataboutisms is simply contributing to the enabling of rape-culture within hockey. Nothing more and nothing less. And doing so consciously, at this point.

 

[PostBradMalone]

Well yeah, my comment was answering what the burden of proof "should be", my answer pertains to what it should be in the case of criminal litigations.

If there aren't any criminal litigations pursued, then there won't be any need for burden of proof since this has already been settled as a civil case. Unless I'm mistaken and a second civil case could be pursued, which I don't think is the case.

So you don't actually know what the burden of proof should be. You don't have to post if you don't know, it's perfectly okay not to do that rather than inventing something whole cloth and potentially misleading a lot of people.

 

[CostPerRebuild]

(If) no action was taken to prevent abuse cases, then that is the crime, not creation of a liability fund. Whether they built a fund or not, they are paying for it either way. It's an irrelevant detail.

It lays out that the organization was aware of a systemic issue and instead of dealing with it properly decided that having money set aside to handle it was the proper response.

It goes to show that its not a few bad apples but the whole tree is rotted.
Hockey Canada is not a private corporation, it has certain standards to uphold.

 

[Paper]

Well yeah, my comment was answering what the burden of proof "should be", my answer pertains to what it should be in the case of criminal litigations.

If there aren't any criminal litigations pursued, then there won't be any need for burden of proof since this has already been settled as a civil case. Unless I'm mistaken and a second civil case could be pursued, which I don't think is the case.

The NHL can “punish”, Hockey Canada can “punish”, their own NHL teams could “punish” and us fans should “blame” them. None of this requires a criminal conviction.

 

[bigdog16]

Maybe???

I don't refer to bullshit like yours as bullshit because I am angry or hostile, I refer to bullshit like yours as bullshit because I am . . . I am . . . well, you know. It's a schtick.

Just admit that you knowingly resorted to dishonest debating techniques, that you are doubling down here with false accusations that I am somehow angry or hostile about your worthless posts, then apologize, then publicly commit to being better when debating.

Hockey has a toxic culture problem. It is far greater than the same problem within society at large because of the violence inherent in the game, and the abhorrent notion of brotherhood/us vs them and the code of silence that is found in toxic hockey culture that is not found in society in general. This is not open for debate with me in this thread, Hockey Canada themselves has very publicly acknowledged the toxic culture, and anyone who denies or deflects with whataboutisms is simply contributing to the enabling of rape-culture within hockey. Nothing more and nothing less. And doing so consciously, at this point.

I don't disagree with you but this is literally every professional sport. Its not just hockey. Its actually probably much worse in football and basketball

 

[DaveMatthew]

The NHL can “punish”, Hockey Canada can “punish”, their own NHL teams could “punish” and us fans should “blame” them. None of this requires a criminal conviction.

It does, however, require more details to be unearthed. And that will likely happen over the coming weeks.

 

[Paper]

It does, however, require more details to be unearthed. And that will likely happen over the coming weeks.

Yes, but it doesn’t need to be beyond a reasonable doubt which is what that poster said is needed.

 

[Quinning]

How do we know that players providing outright objections to being a part of it were actually not a part of it?

What if it's an attempt to save face early and take the spotlight off themselves?

Serious question. I guess you would need to provide legitimate proof that you were out of the country or not at that party.

 

[DaveMatthew]

Yes, but it doesn’t need to be beyond a reasonable doubt which is what that poster said is needed.

No, it doesn't. But nobody knows what the "standard" for the NHL will be. Based on how they, and other leagues, have handled allegations like this in the past, there hasn't been much consistency.

I don't think this is getting too many headlines in the US right now (beyond die-hard hockey Twitter), so the cynic in me says that the NHL will try to mitigate this instead of amplifying it.

How do we know that players providing outright objections to being a part of it were actually not a part of it?

What if it's an attempt to save face early and take the spotlight off themselves?

Serious question. I guess you would need to provide legitimate proof that you were out of the country or not at that party.

Many of the statements have been about "no wrongdoing" and not "I wasn't there", which is why the process of elimination that Twitter users are engaging in right now isn't getting them any closer to figuring out who was involved and who wasn't.

 

[Deuce22]

How do we know that players providing outright objections to being a part of it were actually not a part of it?

What if it's an attempt to save face early and take the spotlight off themselves?

Serious question. I guess you would need to provide legitimate proof that you were out of the country or not at that party.

Yes, it is so naive to assume that because an agent put out a denial statement, that player should be off "the list."

 

[Quinning]

Yes, it is so naive to assume that because an agent put out a denial statement, that player should be off "the list."

If that's the case, and they are later found to have been participants, I want scorched earth for them. This needs to be career-ending. No matter who you are.

 

[inthe6ix]

How do we know that players providing outright objections to being a part of it were actually not a part of it?

What if it's an attempt to save face early and take the spotlight off themselves?

Serious question. I guess you would need to provide legitimate proof that you were out of the country or not at that party.

I roughly counted 15 players who denied involvement in the assault either directly or through their counsel - that leaves 7 players on a 22-man roster.. plantiff said she was assaulted by 8 players.

Something doesn't add up .. there seems to be some merit to your suspicion.

 

[Quinning]

I roughly counted 15 players who denied involvement in the assault either directly or through their counsel - that leaves 7 players on a 22-man roster.. plantiff said she was assaulted by 8 players.

Something doesn't add up and there seems to be some truth to your suspicion.

If you're making that kind of a public dismissal of guilt, it's on you to provide an alibi.

If you don't have one, you might find yourself swimming naked when the tide pulls out.

 

[Craigo85]

How do we know that players providing outright objections to being a part of it were actually not a part of it?

What if it's an attempt to save face early and take the spotlight off themselves?

Serious question. I guess you would need to provide legitimate proof that you were out of the country or not at that party.

I would think the advice their lawyers would be telling them is the last thing you need to be caught doing now is lying. Would lose credibility if this does proceed any further.

 

[Sens in Process]

Just a sincere question, what is the mechanism that will force disclosure of the alleged perpetrators if there is a NDA and no criminal charges will be pursued.?

The thread has been helpful in understanding the situation, but I haven't seen anything related to this.

 

[pcruz]

This is BS. You don’t need a beyond a reasonable doubt level of certainty to assign blame or “punishment” in any situation but a criminal case. Even a civil case only requires that it was more probable than not (50%+1)

Well, don't look now, but the civil case was settled out of court.
The only thing left is a criminal complaint.

The problem is that with the threshold being "beyond a doubt", and the burden of proof being on the prosecutors, not having a resolution from the civil case hurts the case. It also hurts that the victim and her legal team were not persistent in striving for a court decision or even going to trial wherein she could name the individual defendants.

Without an absolute cascade of information and first hand testimony from people in the know, this is going to be really hard to prove.

If that level of information exists wherein the guilt of the defendants is so assured, then her legal representatives were really inept and didn't do her any justice at all by settling the case so early in the process.

The NHL can “punish”, Hockey Canada can “punish”, their own NHL teams could “punish” and us fans should “blame” them. None of this requires a criminal conviction.

If my parents went to the police and made a claim that you punched me in the face, do you believe it just that your employer dismiss you? Should you be ostracized from the general public based solely on an accusation?

Worse even, since we don't know the identity of the kids involved, should everyone involved with Hockey Canada at the time be punished and publicly shamed by getting lumped into this criminal complaint whether there is a conviction or not?

Sounds awful, your world view.

It's also a complete fairy-tale, as the real world requires proof in order to punish people.

 

[BondraTime]

I roughly counted 15 players who denied involvement in the assault either directly or through their counsel - that leaves 7 players on a 22-man roster.. plantiff said she was assaulted by 8 players.

Something doesn't add up .. there seems to be some merit to your suspicion.

They weren’t all on the World Junior team

 

[DaveMatthew]

I roughly counted 15 players who denied involvement in the assault either directly or through their counsel - that leaves 7 players on a 22-man roster.. plantiff said she was assaulted by 8 players.

Something doesn't add up and there seems to be some truth to your suspicion.

People should actually read the statements. They're not close to being the same.

For example, Mete said that he was in Jamaica on the date in question. That exonerates him.

Dube's agent said, "Dillon did not engage in any wrongdoing, and he cooperated fully with the independent London Police Service investigation in 2018, through which all players were then cleared of any wrongdoing. Naming Dillon or attempting to associate him in any way with alleged criminal wrongdoing, or alleging that he was not cooperative with the London Police or was unwilling to cooperate with Hockey Canada, will constitute materially false statements constituting defamation causing serious financial and reputational harm."

That does not exonerate him from being there.