Confirmed with Link: Carter Hart Officially Charged With One Count Of Sexual Assault (Per His Lawyers); Non-roster, salary cap info in OP

[Beef Invictus]

It seems easy for the NHL to argue "there are many other hockey leagues for them to ply their trade in" if they ever tried that.

 

[deadhead]

It seems easy for the NHL to argue "there are many other hockey leagues for them to ply their trade in" if they ever tried that.

Not for equivalent money.

If found non-guilty, odds are that their return after a suspension would end up being a non-event, since that would mean that the evidence was ambiguous enough not to convince a jury (though I'm not conversant with Canadian criminal justice, whether they use the same "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard).

Don't overestimate public outrage, we have a Presidential candidate who was found guilty of sexual assault and bought his way out of other accusations with NDAs, boasted about bad behavior on tape, and still will receive 40+% of the popular vote. And those who would be most outraged are probably least likely to be hockey fans.

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

I hope someone helps me when I'm sued despite not breaking a single US libel law.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

Not for equivalent money.

If found non-guilty, odds are that their return after a suspension would end up being a non-event, since that would mean that the evidence was ambiguous enough not to convince a jury (though I'm not conversant with Canadian criminal justice, whether they use the same "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard).

Don't overestimate public outrage, we have a Presidential candidate who was found guilty of sexual assault and bought his way out of other accusations with NDAs, boasted about bad behavior on tape, and still will receive 40+% of the popular vote. And those who would be most outraged are probably least likely to be hockey fans.

This doesn’t need to turn into a bigger thing but in a thread full of lawyers we have to make sure that we get our legal phrasing correct… he was found liable for sexual assault. He wasn’t found guilty.

 

[Gregor Samsa]

Suing teams or the league to play is ridiculous. Teams pick who they want. And let’s say the players did sue to play in the NHL; I’m sure that lawsuit would make them super popular with the league/team. Would they also be able to sue to get the contract they want? How would this even work? Lol

 

[Beef Invictus]

Not for equivalent money.

If found non-guilty, odds are that their return after a suspension would end up being a non-event, since that would mean that the evidence was ambiguous enough not to convince a jury (though I'm not conversant with Canadian criminal justice, whether they use the same "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard).

Don't overestimate public outrage, we have a Presidential candidate who was found guilty of sexual assault and bought his way out of other accusations with NDAs, boasted about bad behavior on tape, and still will receive 40+% of the popular vote. And those who would be most outraged are probably least likely to be hockey fans.

It would be one thing if he's a skater. But with a trial date pending for apparently 2026, and a "cooling off" period, what are we looking at? 2027? 2028? For possible return?

That's a huge amount of time not playing NHL level hockey at the position with the fewest openings.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

Suing teams or the league to play is ridiculous. Teams pick their who they want. And let’s say the players did sue to play in the NHL; I’m sure that lawsuit would make them super popular with the league/team. Would they also be able to sue to get the contract they want? How would this even work? Lol

People are probably going to point to Kaepernick but they’re not remotely the same.

The NFL settled with him because they always settle because they don’t want to ever get to discovery because they’re corrupt as shit.

 

[Magua]

The Abominable Snow Monster was de-toothed before he was found guilty in a North Pole court of law. Disgusting.

I hope someone helps me when I'm sued despite not breaking a single US libel law.

Anonymous forum personas have been irreparably damaged today. I would contact your Team Lawyer, Cicero, if I were you.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

I want the evidence.

Not going to go back and repeat the back and forth of our prior posts you saying I'm bad for forming an opinion and I say that's how opinions work, but what evidence do you want in order to form your opinion? What are you expecting to hear at a trial that is different than what we know? Unless I'm missing something no one is disputing that this actually happened, only whether or not it was consensual. We know about the video and we know what her allegations are. Are you expecting to find out about some confession from the victim that she's lying or text messages from the accused that they are guilty?

Is the only way you'll believe a victim is if there is a conviction? I'm not an attorney in Canada but the rules of evidence are similar to the US, in which some evidence may not even be admitted at trial. Are you only going on legal standards of the Canadian rules of evidence on what will allow you to form an opinion? What happens if there is evidence that would have changed your mind one way or another but was not admitted into evidence? Do you just not consider it? What happens if that evidentiary ruling gets reversed? Now can you change your opinion or do you have to wait for the judge to retry the case with the additional evidence? Or what if the reverse happens and something is admitted that shouldn't have been? Do you wait for an appeal to change your opinion? Do you even form an opinion before all appealable issues have been resolved and potential re-trials are completed?

 

[Gregor Samsa]

People are probably going to point to Kaepernick but they’re not remotely the same.

The NFL settled with him because they always settle because they don’t want to ever get to discovery because they’re corrupt as shit.

But he still didn’t play afterwards if I’m remembering correctly. That situation is a whole different can of worms and not remotely similar, as you said

 

[BobbyClarkeFan16]

It would be one thing if he's a skater. But with a trial date pending for apparently 2026, and a "cooling off" period, what are we looking at? 2027? 2028? For possible return?

That's a huge amount of time not playing NHL level hockey at the position with the fewest openings.

I think they'll be going to trial sooner than later. Going to trial two years after being charged would be grounds for the charges to be dropped because the defendants didn't get a trial in proper time. They're cracking down on that up here in Canada.

 

[mja]

No, I won't. And that is the objective truth. Did you go to law school? Any lawyer with half a brain cell will have them sue the accuser and Hockey Canada at minimum. If they can prove any procedural mistakes or malfeasance on the part of law enforcement, they could sue them. They even could sue the NHL and teams if they are blackballed afterward. Maybe even the NHLPA if they could establish it failed o meet a duty of care. The NHLPA has a Universal Declaration of Players' Rights' that includes a Right to Work and the Right to be free of harassment.

You are factually incorrect. I think YOU should walk away from this thread, because you are embarrassing yourself.

You're embittered and rambling incoherently, and I'm trying to help you see that all you are accomplishing here is making the rest of us in this thread believe the very worst about you, and for those reasons that you'd be better off taking a breather. This is sincerely not meant as provocation, and you are of course completely free to take or leave this advice.

I've barely posted in the thread, and haven't taken an especially adamant position on anyone's guilt or innocence. I haven't stated anything as fact, because after reading a few details I couldn't stomach reading further. I dislike the use of the phrase "as a father of a daughter" for many reasons, but as a father of a daughter...

I'm also the father of sons, and I do know that false or incorrect accusations happen, sometimes innocently, some times maliciously, and therefore some caution is generally advisable. That said, it can't be an excess of caution either, because that's why sexual assault has historically gone underreported. Rapists hide behind that. Presumption of innocence for the alleged perpetrators must not equal presumption of perjury on the part of the presumed victim. That some people seem to have a great deal of empathy for the alleged rapists, and little to none for the presumed victim, is creepy.

You're so insanely wrong that it's astounding. Just stop, man. I am the only person here who actually is discussing legal standards and statistics with regard to these situations. You are telling on yourself as a prejudiced fool while accusing others of what you are doing. Sort yourself out.

This is more incoherent rambling. What exactly am I wrong on? Rarity of false accusations? Even by your own unsubstantiated figures, around 9 out of 10 times accusations have merit. Meaning that false accusations are relatively quite rare. Meanwhile, I haven't staked out any other firm position other than some people should watch themselves, because it sure seems like they're re-litigating their own pasts in a very public and ill-advised way.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

But he still didn’t play afterwards if I’m remembering correctly. That situation is a whole different can of worms and not remotely similar, as you said

You are remembering correctly. The NFL put together a showcase sometime after the settlement was made and Kaepernick changed the location like thirty minutes before it was supposed to occur and I don’t think he’s been heard from again but again, that’s besides the point.

I just envision people pointing to that situation in that he got paid after suing for collusion for allowing him to play in the league as if it’s similar to what would occur here.

I don’t see a world where the NHL clubs would even need to collude against signing any of these guys. It’ll happen naturally with no grand conspiracy and by the players’ own actions.

 

[Magua]

It would be one thing if he's a skater. But with a trial date pending for apparently 2026, and a "cooling off" period, what are we looking at? 2027? 2028? For possible return?

That's a huge amount of time not playing NHL level hockey at the position with the fewest openings.

This is how I see it. None of these players would play in the NHL before 2026-2027. We are also talking about 4th liners/AHLers besides a certain goalie. 3+ years not in the NHL for depth players, approaching 30 years of age. The league obviously couldn’t collude in this scenario, but you can’t prove that players not under contract and out of the league that long aren’t player evaluations by each team. You’re not obligated to hire anyone either, provided non-hiring isn’t a policy.

 

[mja]

The only way this entire thing ends well for the players is if it’s proven that these acts never occurred. Anything short of that and this is going to stick with them. At least at this point that doesn’t seem like it’s going to be the defense and from what I can tell no one has denied that it occurred to this point.

As I said just above, I can't bear to read the details that are out there. That said, my general understanding of the situation is that the acts in question are not really in dispute, merely whether or not it was consensual? When your best defense is that you surprising an inebriated young woman with a gang bang was totally consensual, you might be in a little bit of trouble.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

As I said just above, I can't bear to read the details that are out there. That said, my general understanding of the situation is that the acts in question are not really in dispute, merely whether or not it was consensual? When your best defense is that you surprising an inebriated young woman with a gang bang was totally consensual, you might be in a little bit of trouble.

From what I recall, a lot of the actual details of what acts actually happened inside of the room were redacted from public records. They may get fought over in court but that really is likely minor details over the grand scheme of things.

I don't really know the best way to respond from here with what we do know as I don't want to subject you to some of the details.

 

[Beef Invictus]

I'm confused as to how anyone can read the known details and become absolutely enraged online at people not giving the perpetrators full benefit of doubt. I really, really hope they simply don't know.

 

[Gregor Samsa]

Is there actually a way the players come out of this looking “good”? They don’t seem to dispute the “train” took place. Why defend these guys?

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

Is there actually a way the players come out of this looking “good”? They don’t seem to dispute the “train” took place. Why defend these guys?

Good? Nah. Not in the general public's eyes.

Neutral? That's possible if one can get passed the taboo sex act and it's shown to be actually consensual beyond any doubt.

Anything short of that and they're not walking away from it.

 

[Surrounded By Ahos]

It's there to manage how government behaves. Not regular people. I am not a government.


It's a smart way to live. Much smarter than waiting for someone to be found guilty of a crime to actually judge them for committing crimes. Per your thinking, if someone who enjoys peeling the skin off kids wants to hang out alone with my kids, I should let him if he hasn't been found guilty of it in court. After all, can't pass judgement according to you!

Yep. If I move into a new apartment complex and have multiple people tell me to watch out for @Beef Invictus in #223 because he'll sit uncomfortably close to you in the laundry and wipe his boogers on your sleeve, I'm going to give you a wide berth, whether or not you've got a criminal record.

 

[FanForLife]

So....I'm reading here they won't re sign Hart?

 

[Beef Invictus]

Yep. If I move into a new apartment complex and have multiple people tell me to watch out for @Beef Invictus in #223 because he'll sit uncomfortably close to you in the laundry and wipe his boogers on your sleeve, I'm going to give you a wide berth, whether or not you've got a criminal record.

I've been told that if you judge me based only on allegations that society will collapse, or something.

Hey, did you guys know that OJ isn't guilty?

 

[Kermit the Prog]

Let's switch to politics. If memory serves, the conduct on the forum was exemplary.

 

[Magua]

Hey, did you guys know that OJ isn't guilty?

 

[Gregor Samsa]

Good? Nah. Not in the general public's eyes.

Neutral? That's possible if one can get passed the taboo sex act and it's shown to be actually consensual beyond any doubt.

Anything short of that and they're not walking away from it.

There is nuance and the vibes are totally different from a frat or teammate gang bang and older people spicing up their sex lives, IMO.