Teams expecting suspensions as 2018 Hockey Canada investigation concludes (update 7/13) up to 8 players from Team Canada to be named

[Sliptip]

Mmm, as a woman, I know I sure love reading threads of posts from old white dudes (and I know that's what most people on this forum are) saying actually rape isn't a crime and those boys didn't mean it. I had to give up after page eight.



I agree with this comment SO much, especially the edit. The most damning thing, even if it isn't specifically criminal, is the fact they realized "oh, shit, we might have done something bad here" and not only had her record that video but they MADE HER SHOWER AWAY ANY EVIDENCE.

I don't care if the perpetrators never see legal criminal justice. As a woman, I am fully aware convictions for rape are vanishingly rare. I don't need to see them tarred and feathered and strung up on pikes. But getting to play in the NHL is a privilege you earn and which can (and should) be denied you for character reasons just as much as a lack of skill on a sheet of ice. Participating in a gang rape of a woman intoxicated to the point of semi-consiousness, especially if you are unwise enough to participate in such an act on camera, should absolutely be just cause to never get to play another minute of NHL hockey. There are hundreds and thousands of other men who deserve that roster spot who didn't rape someone and get caught.

Some of you need to really search your souls if you think otherwise.

I had forgot the shower part as well, but there you go. Holy shit.
Agree with you, and as the point of my message was, you have to totally go out of your way to find any exhonorating scenario to fit some weird ideology of... I don't even know what the point of it is. Obviously the law/court part is a whole issue in itself, and I can see there being a lot off difficulty getting somewhere(especially because for example I know in my homecountry things can vary depending on if they can verify who did what, which in this situation is incredibly hard). But again, that's not the point of all this.

I did not even go into the whole subject about the statements. But(and I'm not naming names mods) having one of the players who suddenly ended up in Europe, who was a good NHL prospect, not even release a statement defending himself in any way or addressing the matter, despite being silently phased out of a league he probably was going to have a career in, doesn't send any signals to the people here?
Also, if the players that aLleGeDlyY came to the room, were in fact just passing by and playing playstation, sure is odd that none of these upstanding citizens when stuff came out just felt like being honest and say "Wassup, I was just setting the high score on tetris and having having a snack while X and Y were having consensual sex next to me. We recorded X giving consent to me being there and borrowing the game, since we, like all junior hockey players, are vary and respectful of sexual boundaries." Or whatever else it may be. Instead we have a most saying they have nothing to do with it, and a couple that are cooperating. Like come the f*** on.


By the way, if someone goes into a situation where you have to preform borderline jedi mind tricks to imagine a situation where a f***ed up thing did not actually happen, and they start screeching "innocent until proven guilty" and "I'm not part of the mob" indiscriminately, and focus on everything except the crime itself, chances are you are better of not paying to much attention to anything they have to say on any topic. Might as well expect them to say that this was all a setup by the shadow-government in order to break their opposition, replace the important positions with their puppets and make Hockey woke.

 

[Troy McClure]

Jared Fogel was fired by Subway the day he was arrested and charged.

Harvey Weinstein was pushed out by of his own company by other shareholders. I don't think it is a good thing that he lost his livelihood before any charges but understand the action of the other people trying to save their company.

I also see a difference between depriving the multimillionaire, face a company, accused by dozens of people and was promptly arrested and charged, of their livelihood and some (at the time) teenagers who are at the beginning of their careers and who have not been charged 5 years after police started investigating.

Subway suspended Jared the day his home was raided. The formal charges and filing came later, but Subway was already cutting off his pay.

If its not proven to be rape then what happened is legally consensual. I certainly don't have a clause in my contract that doesn't allow me to participate in consensual sexual activity in private. I doubt the players do as well.

That presupposes that the employer could prove anything happened at all.

That’s not a thing. You don’t get a certificate from a court declaring the act consensual. You’re making stuff up.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Yes, it is.

Presumption of innocence....

A lack of rape conviction doesn’t mean it was proven to be consensual.

 

[Silky Johnson]

I think there are exponentially higher amounts of rapists that were never convicted than people in jail from false accusations. If your first thought in a situation like this, is “we must think of the players firstly and what’s fair to them”, that’s fine. We disagree in how this situation should be approached. Public figures are held to a much higher standard. It all depends on what the report says, but if it’s true as rumored that they made her consent on camera, they made her wash like a home invasion rapist to get rid of evidence, and texts messages were exchanged, but for some reason there isn’t a conviction, teams would be fools to keep these players. The PR would be destroyed. People are fired or “resign” all the time when their actions reflect horribly on who they are representing, whether there is a conviction or not. As I’ve said before, it all depends on what the report says. Discretion might have to be exercised, and the backlash could be brutal if not handled correctly

They haven't been charged yet. Once charged and formally accused, there is a discussion to be had and suspension pending trial is reasonable.

If the standard is to fire or suspend people on the basis of unsubstanciated accusations alone that is madness.

A lack of rape conviction doesn’t mean it was proven to be consensual.

Subway suspended Jared the day his home was raided. The formal charges and filing came later, but Subway was already cutting off his pay.


That’s not a thing. You don’t get a certificate from a court declaring the act consensual. You’re making stuff up.

You are presumed innocent until convicted.

 

[NyQuil]

Subway suspended Jared the day his home was raided. The formal charges and filing came later, but Subway was already cutting off his pay.

“Subway and Jared Fogle have mutually agreed to suspend their relationship due to the current investigation,” Subway said in a statement emailed to The Huffington Post.”

Yeah they really dropped the hammer.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Tick tok, tick tok….we’re waiting!

 

[Michoulicious]

Miller/Mailloux can't play in the NHL and these guys would get "suspended" for a gang rape? What about life ban and prison?

 

[NyQuil]

Miller/Mailloux can't play in the NHL and these guys would get "suspended" for a gang rape? What about life ban and prison?

Nothing has been ruled out yet.

Posters are just calling each other rape enablers or fascists until the report actually comes out.

 

[iCanada]

If you have had the reasonable expectation of privacy then the morality clause would be hard to enforce.

This is either group sex or rape. One is a crime and the other is legal sexual activity.

A corporation may want to move on from the individual(s) involved but they should be paying out.

Performers accounts on only fans are publicly viewable

That's not how any of this works. There is no "it happened in private" protection clause. There is no "what was done must be illegal" protection clause.

The exact phrasing in the CBA's "morality clause" is that team or the NHL as a whole can terminate a deal with a player who breaches the Standard Player Contract "for any conduct detrimental to the best interests of the Hockey Club or the League.”

Historically there isn't much evidence required to terminate a deal. Evander Kane was terminated on the allegation that he may have illegally crossed the Canadian border. Mike Richards was terminated on the allegation he had someone else's prescribed medicine. The league suspended Voynov's contract before he was even charged, and that entire incident was in his own private home.

 

[NyQuil]

That's not how any of this works. There is no "it happened in private" protection clause. There is no "what was done must be illegal" protection clause.

The exact phrasing in the CBA's "morality clause" is that team or the NHL as a whole can terminate a deal with a player who breaches the Standard Player Contract "for any conduct detrimental to the best interests of the Hockey Club or the League.”

Historically there isn't much evidence required to terminate a deal. Evander Kane was terminated on the allegation that he may have illegally crossed the Canadian border. Mike Richards was terminated on the allegation he had someone else's prescribed medicine. The league suspended Voynov's contract before he was even charged, and that entire incident was in his own private home.

I think if it had been a single perpetrator, all of this would have been done by now.

 

[Gregor Samsa]

They haven't been charged yet. Once charged and formally accused, there is a discussion to be had and suspension pending trial is reasonable.

If the standard is to fire or suspend people on the basis of unsubstanciated accusations alone that is madness.


You are presumed innocent until convicted.

My position has always been we have to see what comes to light before taking action. And people have “resigned” or let go for affairs, and other incidents that reflect poorly on the company. If it looks poorly, even if there is no convictions, the NHL can take action on someone who negatively affects their image, reputation, and product

 

[Silky Johnson]

Subway suspended Jared the day his home was raided. The formal charges and filing came later, but Subway was already cutting off his pay.

He was arrested that day. In Indians formal charges before a judge comes within 24 hours. In any case his arrest meant charges were coming for sure. The players have not been arrested 5+ years after being first investigated.

He was also not fired, he wasn't even an employee. They mutually "suspended" their business relationship. As he was convicted they never had a reason to consider unsuspending it.

Sounds like Subway handled it professionally.

"On July 7, 2015, the FBI and Indiana State Police investigators raided Fogle's Zionsville, Indiana, residence and arrested him on distribution and receipt of child pornography charges; computers and other electronic equipment were removed from his home.[36][37] The same day, a spokesperson for Subway announced that the company and Fogle had mutually agreed to suspend their business relationship; subsequently, Subway removed all references to Fogle from its website"

 

[iCanada]

I think if it had been a single perpetrator, all of this would have been done by now.

Yeah, "any conduct detrimental to the interests of" is a pretty exceptionally low bar.

You could argue that complaining about the refs is conduct detrimental to the interests of the league for example.

There is also another clause in CBA that allows league to suspend any player indefinitely if they are a part of any lawsuit or government investigation, and hand out suspensions or bans "in accordance with the outcome of the investigation."

The NHL would have no problem legally black listing any of these players.

 

[EXTRAS]

I know we can't speculate who is closely involved but does anyone know a site where they are speculating? Asking for a friend...

 

[Silky Johnson]

That's not how any of this works. There is no "it happened in private" protection clause. There is no "what was done must be illegal" protection clause.

The exact phrasing in the CBA's "morality clause" is that team or the NHL as a whole can terminate a deal with a player who breaches the Standard Player Contract "for any conduct detrimental to the best interests of the Hockey Club or the League.”

Historically there isn't much evidence required to terminate a deal. Evander Kane was terminated on the allegation that he may have illegally crossed the Canadian border. Mike Richards was terminated on the allegation he had someone else's prescribed medicine. The league suspended Voynov's contract before he was even charged, and that entire incident was in his own private home.

That's not true about Voynov. He was suspending after being arrested for domestic abuse. He was paid for the remainder of the 14/15 season while under suspension. He was convicted of a lesser crime and taken into custody. He elected to be deported to Russia. Only then was his contract voided.

The league/team was very careful about the suspension ensuring he was paid until it was clear he was guilty.

Kane's contract was voided because he violated the leagues Covid 19 protocols. Nothing to do with a "morality clause". He was also free to sign a new contract the very next season and therefore had no reason to fight it.

 

[Troy McClure]

“Subway and Jared Fogle have mutually agreed to suspend their relationship due to the current investigation,” Subway said in a statement emailed to The Huffington Post.”

Yeah they really dropped the hammer.

Yes, Subway suspended him immediately. Just like we’re talking about the NHL doing to players. I’m glad we agree.

 

[NyQuil]

Yes, Subway suspended him immediately. Just like we’re talking about the NHL doing to players. I’m glad we agree.

Sure, I guess thats why we are waiting to find out who was where and when.

 

[Troy McClure]

You are presumed innocent until convicted.

That doesn’t mean that what you did is cool. Keep in mind what happens at the end of a trial. No one is declared innocent. The jury isn’t saying what the accused did was right or ok. The verdict is guilty or not guilty. Not guilty does not equal innocent.

 

[NyQuil]

That doesn’t mean that what you did is cool. Keep in mind what happens at the end of a trial. No one is declared innocent. The jury isn’t saying what the accused did was right or ok. The verdict is guilty or not guilty. Not guilty does not equal innocent.

It’s impossible to be innocent if you are charged with a crime.

They can choose not to pursue because of insufficient evidence.

But that doesn’t mean you are innocent.

And if you are brought to trial, you are either guilty or not guilty.

So try to avoid being arrested or prosecuted.

 

[squashmaple]

Yeah, "any conduct detrimental to the interests of" is a pretty exceptionally low bar.

You could argue that complaining about the refs is conduct detrimental to the interests of the league for example.

There is also another clause in CBA that allows league to suspend any player indefinitely if they are a part of any lawsuit or government investigation, and hand out suspensions or bans "in accordance with the outcome of the investigation."

The NHL would have no problem legally black listing any of these players.

And they should. It doesn’t matter if the players involved—and the league 100% knows exactly to a man who was and wasn’t—is actually convicted in criminal court. That’s a very high bar to cross, unfortunately.

But the players who were involved do not deserve roster spots on NHL teams, period. I’m sure there have been dozens or hundreds of guys who played on NHL rosters in the past who were rapists or in the room when rapes were happening (Mario Lemieux, anyone????), but since those incidents were swept under rugs and not recorded and didn’t turn into massive political scandals at the same time a cultural backlash was happening among the same demographic who tend to be hockey fans (older, male, wealthier, more conservative than the average person) they didn’t reach the same fever pitch. Maybe it is a little unfair these kids will be made an example of, in the grand scheme of terrible shit happens every day to everyone everywhere, but they are on video literally gangbanging this poor girl, and from reports she was basically nonresponsive. They proved that knew they did something they shouldn’t have done when it was over and they hastily made her shower and record a video saying that it was consensual. They have made an example of themselves. If it means that costs them one of just 736 jobs, so be it. They’re not entitled to those 736 jobs and teams can use whatever criteria they deem fit to fill their rosters with the many, many capable hockey players who were not involved in a gang rape in London, Ontario, in June of 2018.

 

[GeoRox89]

Yes, it is.

Presumption of innocence....

Quite the contrary an ‘honest but mistaken belief in consent’ is a legal defence to sexual assault. In that case the accused is essentially admitting there was no consent but explaining why they believed there was and therefore did not have the required intent to commit the crime

By the same token, you are essentially arguing that someone who is raped by a person suffering from sexsomnia, who is asleep and not consciously aware of their actions and therefore did not actually intend to assault someone and cannot be convicted, legally consented when they very clearly did not

There is a difference between not proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be rape and consensual sex

 

[Silky Johnson]

That's not how any of this works. There is no "it happened in private" protection clause. There is no "what was done must be illegal" protection clause.

The exact phrasing in the CBA's "morality clause" is that team or the NHL as a whole can terminate a deal with a player who breaches the Standard Player Contract "for any conduct detrimental to the best interests of the Hockey Club or the League.”

Historically there isn't much evidence required to terminate a deal. Evander Kane was terminated on the allegation that he may have illegally crossed the Canadian border. Mike Richards was terminated on the allegation he had someone else's prescribed medicine. The league suspended Voynov's contract before he was even charged, and that entire incident was in his own private home.

Please show me where that clause ha

Yeah, "any conduct detrimental to the interests of" is a pretty exceptionally low bar.

You could argue that complaining about the refs is conduct detrimental to the interests of the league for example.

There is also another clause in CBA that allows league to suspend any player indefinitely if they are a part of any lawsuit or government investigation, and hand out suspensions or bans "in accordance with the outcome of the investigation."

The NHL would have no problem legally black listing any of these players.

The existence of a clause doesn't make it enforceable.

Richards and Voynov were both arrested and and faced criminal proceedings.

Even then, Voynov was only had his contract voided when he couldn't legally be in the country.

Richards and the NHLPA grieved his contract being voided and there was a settlement.

Kane had nothing to do with that clause and was free to sign a new contract immediately.

Show me an example of a player having their means of income removed for something they were not arrested for let alone convicted of. Hell, they couldn't even get away with the Mike Richard thing without a settlement.

 

[Silky Johnson]

Quite the contrary an ‘honest but mistaken belief in consent’ is a legal defence to sexual assault. In that case the accused is essentially admitting there was no consent but explaining why they believed there was and therefore did not have the required intent to commit the crime

By the same token, you are essentially arguing that someone who is raped by a person suffering from sexsomnia, who is asleep and not consciously aware of their actions and therefore did not actually intend to assault someone and cannot be convicted, legally consented when they very clearly did not

There is a difference between not proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be rape and consensual sex

In this case, the players are saying that it was consentual and the act took place. They also have a presumption of innocence. As of now there are no arrests and no charges. Until there are charges the accuser has no standing. If they are presumed innocent and THERE IS NO LEGAL COUNTER ARGUMENT TO THAT and all agree there was an act that took place then by all logic it was consentual.

If the police do not file charges, the accuser could file a civil case against the players. She would then have standing and a legal determination of consent could occur. She chose not to do that yet.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Well if I wasn't proven to have done so by a court, I would sue the shit out of my employer for defamation and wrongful dismissal.

Your comprehension skills are poor. My point is that courts determine people's guilt not angry mobs, rogue employers or virtue signaling randoms on hockey chat boards.

You have a code of conduct policy at work, don't you? Go test it and tell us what happens.

 

[Troy McClure]

Please show me where that clause ha

The existence of a clause doesn't make it enforceable.

Richards and Voynov were both arrested and and faced criminal proceedings.

Even then, Voynov was only had his contract voided when he couldn't legally be in the country.

Richards and the NHLPA grieved his contract being voided and there was a settlement.

Kane had nothing to do with that clause and was free to sign a new contract immediately.

Show me an example of a player having their means of income removed for something they were not arrested for let alone convicted of. Hell, they couldn't even get away with the Mike Richard thing without a settlement.

Players in every sport get suspended for non-criminal words/actions all the time. Kyrie Irving was suspended for quite a while for promoting a bigoted movie. It cost him a lot of money. Several NHL players have been suspended for slurs said on ice.

Well if I wasn't proven to have done so by a court, I would sue the shit out of my employer for defamation and wrongful dismissal.

Your comprehension skills are poor. My point is that courts determine people's guilt not angry mobs, rogue employers or virtue signaling randoms on hockey chat boards.

And you would lose this lawsuit.