(Official) Around the NHL 8.0

[Lunatik]

That's simply not true. 95% of rape claims are true.

The stat is around 8% from what I can find, but let's be honest here few accusers will admit to lying, few rapists will admit to being guilty, so it's he said she said.

 

[Lunatik]

I would honestly understand if they suspended me, with pay of course. edit: and strangling puppies is nothing like rape, but I understand you using that example over others.

I just don't think Kane should be at camp, suspend him with pay.. at least wait until the Grand Jury trial is over

They have no grounds to suspend him though, all this stuff is laid out in the CBA and even if charged he still may not be able to be suspended, the league reportedly only suspended Voynov when they did because he would not co-operate with the leagues investigation in the charges.

 

[Anglesmith]

I would honestly understand if they suspended me, with pay of course. edit: and strangling puppies is nothing like rape, but I understand you using that example over others.

I just don't think Kane should be at camp, suspend him with pay.. at least wait until the Grand Jury trial is over

It would be fine if the only consequence to not working was company production. But it isn't. Kane has his own career to think about, and the effects of missing training camp + on his statistics and value, etc.

That's probably the reason why, as 100TG points out, this is all laid out in the CBA.

 

[YMCMBYOLO]

It would be fine if the only consequence to not working was company production. But it isn't. Kane has his own career to think about, and the effects of missing training camp + on his statistics and value, etc.

That's probably the reason why, as 100TG points out, this is all laid out in the CBA.

Hate to break it, but if Kane really has his career to think out he wouldn't have put himself in this position anyways, especially if he was drinking which seems to be the case here.

 

[Lunatik]

Hate to break it, but if Kane really has his career to think out he wouldn't have put himself in this position anyways, especially if he was drinking which seems to be the case here.

Now we are faulting him for having drinks? C'mon dude you seem to be one one hell of a moral high horse today.

 

[Bouma Fett*]

If he didn't rape anyone then he really didn't put himself in any position. . .

 

[Anglesmith]

Hate to break it, but if Kane really has his career to think out he wouldn't have put himself in this position anyways, especially if he was drinking which seems to be the case here.

The assumption that you have to have done something wrong in order to wind up in this situation is where the law disagrees with you.

If Kane is charged, you're right. Until then, the situation is that he's been accused. In our scenario where I accuse you of canine abuse, do you think it would be fair to blame you for being in that situation?

EDIT: Actually, there's been something pretty close to home for me recently that is related. An ex-teacher of mine was detained in Indonesia for sexual abuse. Every single part of the prosecution was fabricated. He was found guilty by a bribed jury, but won his civil case, a defamation case and the high court appeal, eventually being let go after 14 months in prison. The guy did (according to every shred of credible evidence and several expert analyses) nothing wrong at all, yet because of the whim of a mother at the school to extort millions of dollars from the school, he wound up in the situation of losing over a year of his life. Is that right?

 

[YMCMBYOLO]

The assumption that you have to have done something wrong in order to wind up in this situation is where the law disagrees with you.

If Kane is charged, you're right. Until then, the situation is that he's been accused. In our scenario where I accuse you of canine abuse, do you think it would be fair to blame you for being in that situation?

EDIT: Actually, there's been something pretty close to home for me recently that is related. An ex-teacher of mine was detained in Indonesia for sexual abuse. Every single part of the prosecution was fabricated. He was found guilty by a bribed jury, but won his civil case, a defamation case and the high court appeal, eventually being let go after 14 months in prison. The guy did (according to every shred of credible evidence and several expert analyses) nothing wrong at all, yet because of the whim of a mother at the school to extort millions of dollars from the school, he wound up in the situation of losing over a year of his life. Is that right?

And yet my personal story is the complete opposite of yours. I'd rather not talk about it on here for the sake of privacy for her.

 

[YMCMBYOLO]

Now we are faulting him for having drinks? C'mon dude you seem to be one one hell of a moral high horse today.

uhm Kane seems to be the guy who can't handle his drinks well. Example: He beat up a cab driver over 10 cents when he was drunk and then he was at some party like three years ago and ****ed **** up when he was drunk.

If you can handle your drinks, fine, but if you can't, then yeah I think faulting him for having drinks is valid. Especially since drinking and sexual assaults go hand in hand, especially when Kane seems to be a physical one when drunk.

 

[InfinityIggy]

Is it just me or is it getting, political in here.

 

[Anglesmith]

And yet my personal story is the complete opposite of yours. I'd rather not talk about it on here for the sake of primary for her.

And look, Kane really put himself in this position considering the woman went STRAIGHT to the hospital after leaving his house.

If, under the law, there was evidence that Kane had done something wrong, then why haven't charges been laid?

I think the issue is that you want to err on the side of caution for society, but you can't just ignore that Kane is part of society. You can't just trample one person's rights to make others feel better.

 

[Anglesmith]

Is it just me or is it getting, political in here.

I don't think this is a political discussion.

If anything, it's a legal one, and an NHL-related one.

 

[YMCMBYOLO]

If, under the law, there was evidence that Kane had done something wrong, then why haven't charges been laid?

I think the issue is that you want to err on the side of caution for society, but you can't just ignore that Kane is part of society. You can't just trample one person's rights to make others feel better.

You do understand it takes time for police to charge someone, especially when they're in an on-going investigation, right?

I've seen multiple times where a company has suspended someone because of an ongoing investigation. And their career was on the line too when they suspended him. Sorry, but sometimes you have to suspend to save the company's image. Especially if the investigation is serious.

 

[Anglesmith]

You do understand it takes time for police to charge someone, especially when they're in an on-going investigation, right?

I've seen multiple times where a company has suspended someone because of an ongoing investigation. And their career was on the line too when they suspended him.

Of course, it all comes down to company policy. The NHL's policy was negotiated with the players' interests in mind because of the Union's input.

In many other professions, suspension without pay doesn't really have the same consequences for the person involved.

 

[InfinityIggy]

I don't think this is a political discussion.

If anything, it's a legal one, and an NHL-related one.

I just wanted to contribute

 

[YMCMBYOLO]

Of course, it all comes down to company policy. The NHL's policy was negotiated with the players' interests in mind because of the Union's input.

In many other professions, suspension without pay doesn't really have the same consequences for the person involved.

Basically it comes down to company gain or not. And with this, the Hawks not suspending Kane is for their gain, IMO. Which is low-class AF

Let's be honest, if this wasn't Kane and someone like Bickell then the Hawks would suspend him for sure.

 

[Anglesmith]

Basically it comes down to company gain or not. And with this, the Hawks not suspending Kane is for their gain, IMO. Which is low-class AF

Let's be honest, if this wasn't Kane and someone like Bickell then the Hawks would suspend him for sure.

No, in the case of any player it would violate the CBA, I'm pretty sure, so I honestly can't see them doing that.

 

[Lunatik]

uhm Kane seems to be the guy who can't handle his drinks well. Example: He beat up a cab driver over 10 cents when he was drunk and then he was at some party like three years ago and ****ed **** up when he was drunk.

If you can handle your drinks, fine, but if you can't, then yeah I think faulting him for having drinks is valid. Especially since drinking and sexual assaults go hand in hand, especially when Kane seems to be a physical one when drunk.

I hate Kane as much as the next guy, but you are going a little overboard here. It seems to me like you have already convicted Kane in your mind. But take it from someone who was falsely accused (not to the police but to a mutual friend), this needs to be played out and all sides heard. An accusation does not make someone guilty, regardless of how big of a dick bag they are.

 

[YMCMBYOLO]

No, in the case of any player it would violate the CBA, I'm pretty sure, so I honestly can't see them doing that.

And yet the Kings could terminate Richards contract because it was in their interests. Hell, they terminated the contract when it was in investigation, so he wasn't even charged yet. Let's be honest, they terminated his contract because it was in their best interests (his cap was god-awful). If it was Kopitar there'd be no way in hell they'd terminate it. I feel it's the same situation here, albeit a different circumstance. However, both are/were being investigated by police with different outcomes. I wonder why?


A team will always find loopholes and this is the same.

 

[InfinityIggy]

But that's apples and oranges because Kane hasn't been convicted of anything yet.

 

[Anglesmith]

And yet the Kings could terminate Richards contract because it was in their interests. Hell, they terminated the contract when it was in investigation, so he wasn't even charged yet. Let's be honest, they terminated his contract because it was in their best interests (his cap was god-awful). If it was Kopitar there'd be no way in hell they'd terminate it. I feel it's the same situation here, albeit a different circumstance. However, both are/were being investigated by police with different outcomes. I wonder why?


A team will always find loopholes and this is the same.

There's been a grievance filed in the Richards case. Doesn't that support the notion that that isn't a valid course of action?

 

[YMCMBYOLO]

But that's apples and oranges because Kane hasn't been convicted of anything yet.

And yet when Richards contract was terminated, he wasn't charged yet either.

 

[Lunatik]

And yet the Kings could terminate Richards contract because it was in their interests. Hell, they terminated the contract when it was in investigation, so he wasn't even charged yet. Let's be honest, they terminated his contract because it was in their best interests (his cap was god-awful). If it was Kopitar there'd be no way in hell they'd terminate it. I feel it's the same situation here, albeit a different circumstance. However, both are/were being investigated by police with different outcomes. I wonder why?


A team will always find loopholes and this is the same.

This is not the same situation. Richards' contract was not terminated because he was arrested, it was terminated because he never notified the team about the arrest and as a result it made it so they could not trade him. In fact if they terminated his contract because of a drug arrest they would be in violation of the CBA because if a player is arrested on a drug charge they have to enter the substance abuse program and it protects them from being terminated.

 

[Calculon]

If I'm not mistaken, Ferland was still allowed to attend camp and play in the AHL even after being charged with assault. Those charges were later dropped.

Anyway, from the statement on Voynov's suspension:

The suspension was imposed under Section 18-A.5 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which provides that, during the pendency of a criminal investigation, "The League may suspend the Player pending the League's formal review and disposition of the matter where the failure to suspend the Player during this period would create a substantial risk of material harm to the legitimate interests and/or reputation of the League."

A subsequent article stated:

Earlier this month N.H.L. Commissioner Gary Bettman said the league would handle such incidents on a case-by-case basis. Asked Monday why the league reacted differently than it had in the Varlamov case, Bill Daly, the N.H.L.'s deputy commissioner, said, “The actual facts we were made aware of and were responding to were significantly different in the two cases.”

Which suggests that ultimately, the league feels Kane playing isn't detrimental to their interests and image, likely because they think he won't be convicted. Or because he's too popular.

The details behind the Richards termination have yet to be released. The Kings have only stated the contract was terminated because Richards committed a material breach of said contract, but they have yet to specify what that material breach is exactly. And based on the thread on the business board and the information available to date, it seems like it was little more than a desperate hail mary by a GM looking for a creative way out of his own mistakes. Doubt the termination stands.

 

[InfinityIggy]

And yet when Richards contract was terminated, he wasn't charged yet either.

Because he didn't commit a crime..nor was he accused of commiting one.