Troy McClure
Should’ve drafted Makar
But we aren't talking about law enforcement. We're talking about a private business making personnel decisions.
Teams expecting suspensions as 2018 Hockey Canada investigation concludes (update 7/13) up to 8 players from Team Canada to be named
- Thread starter ucanthanzalthetruth
- Start date
- Status
- Oct 23, 2014
- 29,937
- 42,386
Hardly comparable, these players were active NBA/NHL/NFL players at the time of their transgressions who created large distractions for their teams/league. Action was unavoidable
Imo it would be almost weird for NHL to suspend these players if nothing criminal comes from this.
Almost like the league would be doing it to virtue signal
As if Saban would ever settle for a 4 star recruit at QB. Especially one from up north.
Just teasing. You make some good points.
BadgerBruce
Registered User
- Aug 8, 2013
- 1,632
- 2,412
I’m not going to chime in on what could/should/will/won’t happen once the league’s report is released.
What I will offer is that who (be it a person or an entity) undertakes the investigation always matters. In this case, that would be the NHL’s executive vice president and chief security officer, Jared Maples.
Maples was the director of New Jersey’s Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness from 2017-21, and prior to that served two years at the Department of Defense and 10 years at the Central Intelligence Agency.
This is not the same as having some “3rd party independent law firm” handle things. Maples’ background is law enforcement, through and through. I’d expect his report to reflect this background.
What I will offer is that who (be it a person or an entity) undertakes the investigation always matters. In this case, that would be the NHL’s executive vice president and chief security officer, Jared Maples.
Maples was the director of New Jersey’s Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness from 2017-21, and prior to that served two years at the Department of Defense and 10 years at the Central Intelligence Agency.
This is not the same as having some “3rd party independent law firm” handle things. Maples’ background is law enforcement, through and through. I’d expect his report to reflect this background.
I Hate Philadelphia
Registered User
Of course if players are found guilty, they should be punished. I'm not sure why anyone would disagree with this.
However; the fact that Hockey Canada will face absolutely zero repercussions from this, be suspended from zero international competitions, etc. shows that nobody really cares about justice being served.
However; the fact that Hockey Canada will face absolutely zero repercussions from this, be suspended from zero international competitions, etc. shows that nobody really cares about justice being served.
Gregor Samsa
Registered User
- Sep 5, 2020
- 4,276
- 4,868
A man sees his female neighbor collecting her mail on an empty street. He walks over and tells her he’ll gouge her eyes out and blind her if she doesn’t come with him. She goes with him. She reports the rape. He says it was consensual. There are no witnesses. It is impossible to convict him
Is this not a rape? It is generally a positive thing that the courts hold guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for crimes. In 99% of them it is the noble route to take. However it fails badly with sexual assaults. There is often no hard proof. If the report is released and things look really bad, but there isn’t enough to get a conviction, you best believe the NHL will want to protect their image. Especially with this growing the game stuff. To employ people in a highly public way when the public believes theyre rapists is Pejorative Slured. If these guys didn’t do anything shady the report will most likely exonerate them
Is this not a rape? It is generally a positive thing that the courts hold guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for crimes. In 99% of them it is the noble route to take. However it fails badly with sexual assaults. There is often no hard proof. If the report is released and things look really bad, but there isn’t enough to get a conviction, you best believe the NHL will want to protect their image. Especially with this growing the game stuff. To employ people in a highly public way when the public believes theyre rapists is Pejorative Slured. If these guys didn’t do anything shady the report will most likely exonerate them
Last edited:
This would lead me to believe that these teams already know their players were involved and choose to keep them anyway. That stanks of the Hawks covering up that sexual assault. The execs of the team that "are preparing" should also be suspended and or fired for knowing and doing nothing.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 26,362
- 13,667
Gaylord Q Tinkledink
Registered User
- Apr 29, 2018
- 33,812
- 37,120
Bocephus86
Registered User
There's another thing I've noticed going on in this thread:
Most people are saying that IF the NHL report concludes that players xyz did abc then they have the power to suspend these players even if there are no formal criminal charges. This was a battle line for some reason, and that goal post has been moved to the NHL can do it if they have evidence something 'bad' happened (that second part has already been acknowledged).
I am also seeing the 'counter' crowd trying to say that the first set of people are already calling for suspensions and calling players rapists. I haven't seen one poster call any player a rapist today. They are talking about the likelihood of the report (and acknowledging some of the already public information, it certainly looks bad for whatever players are involved).
What I am seeing is a battle around the hypothetical situation where the NHL finds enough to suspend/ban xyz player but where there isn't enough to charge the players with a crime. This is odd to me as it seems that most people agree that is in the leagues power. That also explains why the 'other' side wants to muddy this discussion by pretending that players are already suspended, basically.
Maybe that is a tacit acknowledgement that their argument isn't really a good one, since there seems to be a fake scenario being argued against (or a strawman, as its called).
Most people are saying that IF the NHL report concludes that players xyz did abc then they have the power to suspend these players even if there are no formal criminal charges. This was a battle line for some reason, and that goal post has been moved to the NHL can do it if they have evidence something 'bad' happened (that second part has already been acknowledged).
I am also seeing the 'counter' crowd trying to say that the first set of people are already calling for suspensions and calling players rapists. I haven't seen one poster call any player a rapist today. They are talking about the likelihood of the report (and acknowledging some of the already public information, it certainly looks bad for whatever players are involved).
What I am seeing is a battle around the hypothetical situation where the NHL finds enough to suspend/ban xyz player but where there isn't enough to charge the players with a crime. This is odd to me as it seems that most people agree that is in the leagues power. That also explains why the 'other' side wants to muddy this discussion by pretending that players are already suspended, basically.
Maybe that is a tacit acknowledgement that their argument isn't really a good one, since there seems to be a fake scenario being argued against (or a strawman, as its called).
- Status
