Hart, McLeod, Dube, Foote, Formenton charged with sexual assault

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Frank is 100% carrying water on this for the NHL.

First he was saying these weren't connected to the WJC charges.

Now he's saying the teams were in the dark and had no idea.

I'm a random person with no connection to the NHL or Hockey Canada and I heard on Jan. 19th that Dube and Hart were the two biggest names that would be implicated and that more would be coming.

To think that the NHL teams had no idea or no awareness at all that this was a possibility is just crazy...they maybe didn't have confirmation but they knew it was a possibility for sure.

I've heard a lot of rumors about a lot of things...some are true and some aren't. The Flames can't act like you or I BSing on a messageboard. Personal reasons would have been better there are bigger fish to fry here.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Elkyiv

Does anyone know the legal language that is used when drafting up player contracts? Can being charged with certain Criminal Code sections permit the team to terminate a contract, or does it have to result in a conviction?

I haven't followed too many criminal court cases with athletes, but I recall Kobe playing during his case.

There's a very broad clause about "conduct detrimental to ... professional hockey".

Paragraphs 2(e) and 14 of the Standard Player's Contract (SPC) read:

2. [...] The Player further agrees,

[...]

(e) to conduct himself on and off the rink according to the highest standards of honesty, morality, fair play and sportsmanship, and to refrain from conduct detrimental to the best interest of the Club, the League or professional hockey in general.




14. The Club may also terminate this SPC upon written notice to the Player (but only after obtaining Waivers from all other Clubs) if the Player shall at any time:

(a) fail, refuse, or neglect to obey the Club's rules governing training and conduct of Players, if such failure, refusal or neglect should constitute a material breach of this SPC.

(b) fail, refuse or neglect to render his services hereunder or in any other manner materially breach this SPC.

Being convicted of a serious crime is likely to be interpreted a "material breach" of the "conduct" clause in paragraph 2(e). Being charged may not be enough justification. Mike Richards' contract with the Kings was infamously unilaterally terminated by the Kings, even though he was facing charges and hadn't been convicted. Ultimately the charges were stayed and Richards reached a cash settlement with the Kings to pay him a portion of the outstanding amount remaining on his contract at the time of the termination.

That said, Article 18-A of the NHL-NHLPA Collective Bargaining Agreement also gives the Commissioner the power to fine a player, cancel his contract, suspend him, or expel him from the league entirely:

18-A.2 Commissioner Authority to Impose Discipline for Off-Ice Conduct
Whenever the Commissioner determines that a Player has violated a League Rule applicable to Players [...], or has been or is guilty of conduct (whether during or outside the playing season) that is detrimental to or against the welfare of the League or the game of hockey, [...]

The League can suspend players facing criminal charges, pending a formal review (and hearing) of the matter. (Paragraph 18-A.5)

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

I don't think the oiler fans in the room are going to provide unbiased analysis on this lol.

They've been frothing at the mouths to have something to throw in Flames fans faces after their long streak of embarrassing conduct.

But i think we'll be the judges of whether or not the team botched this.

Information is still limited so can't make much of a case about anything. Maybe dube was under care? But at the same time... I don't know what a team is supposed to do in this instance that won't have some faction of people up in arms. Since dube was the first to take leave maybe the PR department didn't know what to put out there. I just hope they didn't fabricate the mental health story and that it was actually based on something tangible.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

I don't think the oiler fans in the room are going to provide unbiased analysis on this lol.

They've been frothing at the mouths to have something to throw in Flames fans faces after their long streak of embarrassing conduct.

Holy ####, my man let it the #### go. This is so far beyond 'team allegiance' it's not even funny.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Holy ####, my man let it the #### go. This is so far beyond 'team allegiance' it's not even funny.

It was the Oiler fan who came here to say I toada so and mock people for rightly criticizing them about Perry\Kane\Bob Nicholson love

you and him, and anyone else may notice not one Flames fan is defending Dube...all the Oiler fanboys seem really interested in CP suddenly, this thread in particular. We can see who is viewing.

Don't pretend team allegiance doesn't matter, are those guys scouring the Devils or Flyers boards?

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Frank is 100% carrying water on this for the NHL.

First he was saying these leave of absences weren't connected to the WJC charges.

Now he's saying the teams were in the dark and had no idea.

I'm a random person with no connection to the NHL or Hockey Canada and I heard on Jan. 19th that Dube and Hart were the two biggest names that would be implicated and that more would be coming.

To think that the NHL teams had no idea or no awareness at all that this was a possibility is just crazy...they maybe didn't have confirmation but they knew it was a possibility for sure.

Interesting because frank has ripped the league on a few occasions this season.

He's a tough one to figure out. I dont know if integrity is one of his primary qualities. I don't think he's a water carrier necessarily, but he might be "doing a solid" for his connections on those teams in this specific instance.

I just think every one needs to take their lumps on this, if there are lumps to be taken. If teams knew behind closed doors for any length of time it shouldn't be covered up with these damage control claims of "being in the dark"

Own it and ensure there's zero tolerance and better handling of it in the future.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by dino7c

I've heard a lot of rumors about a lot of things...some are true and some aren't. The Flames can't act like you or I BSing on a messageboard. Personal reasons would have been better there are bigger fish to fry here.

I'm not saying the Flames should have acted on those rumors and terminated his deal or anything.

My point is just that:

1) Saying the Flames had "no idea" is completly ignoring all the evidence. If I had an idea that something was up, then they would have had an idea. Just say that the "Flames didn't have confirmation he was charged", not that they had "no idea"

2) With that in mind they probably should have taken a little more care when tying the press release on his leave of absence to mental health and just shared as little information as possible.

100% there are bigger fish to fry. But IMO it's another indication of the hockey organizations trying to protect the accused which was part of the problem to start with. First hockey Canada paid money from tax payers / hockey dues to cover this up and protect the accused, and now it feels like the Flames might have done the same (intentional or not).

It's a minor infraction and shouldn't be the focus of the day, but unless we stop protecting the accused in these situations the problems not going to be fixed

[CliffFletcher]

The reason people feel betrayed by the ‘mental health’ wording is because they feel there’s a moral dimension to seeking mental health treatment. Instead of shaming people who seek mental health support, we now valourize them. But as we normalize talking openly about mental health, we need to move past that. There’s no more moral moral dimension to seeking mental health treatment than there is to seeking treatment for diabetes.

If Dube did seek out mental health treatment, and his agent communicated that to the Flames, who then referenced it in their press release, then I don’t think the Flames did anything wrong. If fans thought Dillon Dube was a brave and sympathetic hero for getting mental health support and feel betrayed now, then that’s on them.

[N-E-B]

It’s weird that people are more upset at the Flames for a PR blunder than they are at Dillon Dube for allegedly participating in gang rape.

I’m willing to forgive the Flames for what they did. I’m not sure I could say the same about Dillon Dube.

Cut ties with him as soon as possible and all is forgiven. Nobody here has any clue what the Flames did or didn’t know. Nobody knows what the NHL and Hockey Canada did or did not disclose to teams during the investigation.

I think a lot of the outrage is being misdirected.

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Interesting because frank has ripped the league on a few occasions this season.

He's a tough one to figure out. I dont know if integrity is one of his primary qualities. I don't think he's a water carrier necessarily, but he might be "doing a solid" for his connections on those teams in this specific instance.

I just think every one needs to take their lumps on this, if there are lumps to be taken. If teams knew behind closed doors for any length of time it shouldn't be covered up with these damage control claims of "being in the dark"

Own it and ensure there's zero tolerance and better handling of it in the future.

It's really more complicated than that the league can't comment when there are multiple players, and Iare probably just following legal advice. It really has no baring if the league knew or not If they are just complying with legal advice on the matter. Once the facts come out then the league will be able to comment openly, something they can't do right now.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by timun

There's a very broad clause about "conduct detrimental to ... professional hockey".

Paragraphs 2(e) and 14 of the Standard Player's Contract (SPC) read:

2. [...] The Player further agrees,

[...]

(e) to conduct himself on and off the rink according to the highest standards of honesty, morality, fair play and sportsmanship, and to refrain from conduct detrimental to the best interest of the Club, the League or professional hockey in general.




14. The Club may also terminate this SPC upon written notice to the Player (but only after obtaining Waivers from all other Clubs) if the Player shall at any time:

(a) fail, refuse, or neglect to obey the Club's rules governing training and conduct of Players, if such failure, refusal or neglect should constitute a material breach of this SPC.

(b) fail, refuse or neglect to render his services hereunder or in any other manner materially breach this SPC.

Being convicted of a serious crime is likely to be interpreted a "material breach" of the "conduct" clause in paragraph 2(e). Being charged may not be enough justification. Mike Richards' contract with the Kings was infamously unilaterally terminated by the Kings, even though he was facing charges and hadn't been convicted. Ultimately the charges were stayed and Richards reached a cash settlement with the Kings to pay him a portion of the outstanding amount remaining on his contract at the time of the termination.

That said, Article 18-A of the NHL-NHLPA Collective Bargaining Agreement also gives the Commissioner the power to fine a player, cancel his contract, suspend him, or expel him from the league entirely:

18-A.2 Commissioner Authority to Impose Discipline for Off-Ice Conduct
Whenever the Commissioner determines that a Player has violated a League Rule applicable to Players [...], or has been or is guilty of conduct (whether during or outside the playing season) that is detrimental to or against the welfare of the League or the game of hockey, [...]

The League can suspend players facing criminal charges, pending a formal review (and hearing) of the matter. (Paragraph 18-A.5)

One gloss I haven't considered - the conduct that was used re Richards, Perry et al was conduct which occurred while they were under the onctract. Not before. I don't know if that's significant. Peters was terminated for stuff from before but that was a coach contract and I suspect he got a settlement near 100%.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If people thought Dillon Dube was a brave and sympathetic hero for getting mental health support and feel betrayed now, then that’s on them.

Exactly.

I've known people who did bad things and didn't have mental health troubles.
I've known people who had mental health troubles and didn't do bad things.
I've known people who did bad things and had mental health troubles, but the two were not related.
And I've known people who did bad things partly because of their mental health troubles.

The moral issue and the medical issue are two separate things. Good on Dube if he needed mental health treatment and is getting it. Very, very bad on Dube if he did what he is accused of doing. Neither one negates the other.

Originally Posted by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either – but right through every human heart – and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained.

[My2Cents]

This news makes me sad. Terrible thing happened and everyone is now just tearing each other apart. I get the outrage, as I feel it too. I’m just not sure screaming at each other over social media/forums is the best way forward.

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I'm not saying the Flames should have acted on those rumors and terminated his deal or anything.

My point is just that:

1) Saying the Flames had "no idea" is completly ignoring all the evidence. If I had an idea that something was up, then they would have had an idea. Just say that the "Flames didn't have confirmation he was charged", not that they had "no idea"

2) With that in mind they probably should have taken a little more care when tying the press release on his leave of absence to mental health and just shared as little information as possible.

100% there are bigger fish to fry. But IMO it's another indication of the hockey organizations trying to protect the accused which was part of the problem to start with. First hockey Canada paid money from tax payers / hockey dues to cover this up and protect the accused, and now it feels like the Flames might have done the same (intentional or not).

It's a minor infraction and shouldn't be the focus of the day, but unless we stop protecting the accused in these situations the problems not going to be fixed

Didn't the Flames indicate he was under care, which would imply tbe release they gave was accurate?. That wouldn't be the same for the rest of the said players because they weren't under any care.

[curves2000]

It's true that people who have mental health concerns, can commit crimes and vice versa. People who may have committed a crime and see everything fall apart, can have mental and or physical health concerns. Think chest pains, panic attacks, trouble sleeping, anxiety and more. So yes, the Flames statement about him being away for mental health concerns is 100% accurate and correct from all available evidence.

Where the Flames look ****ing stupid and a bush league organization is on what happened AFTER. Sending out players to sing praise about mental health, support, how he should get the care he deserves etc, implying the Flames are some great, supporting organization etc. You think the players are happy about that now??

As for not knowing details, is it really hard to find out basic details off the record? I mean, you can take some basic facts and run the balance of probabilities. He was on the team, he was the captain, was he or was he not in London, ON at the time? No, ok great!! Or Yes, ok maybe we should dig a little closer. It's called due diligence and risk management. It's really NOT that hard to figure out what happened on the broad level if you actually ask around and are competent.

You can't change what has happened but this notion that nobody knows nothing is absurd. They are in the hockey business! It's a small group of people, everybody knows each other and has friends/connections.

As for terminating their contracts, I would say that it's important to let the process play out and see what happens with the court cases before making any drastic moves from a legal perspective. This could be a very very strong case which makes the initial London Police investigation look brutal, or it could be a very weak case that will easily be defended. Doubtful it goes to multiple trials but some of the evidence might be damming.

Brutal all around

[PeteMoss]

https://awfulannouncing.com/nhl/flam...statement.html

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The reason people feel betrayed by the ‘mental health’ wording is because they feel there’s a moral dimension to seeking mental health treatment. Instead of shaming people who seek mental health support, we now valourize them. But as we normalize talking openly about mental health, we need to move past that. There’s no more moral moral dimension to seeking mental health treatment than there is to seeking treatment for diabetes.

If Dube did seek out mental health treatment, and his agent communicated that to the Flames, who then referenced it in their press release, then I don’t think the Flames did anything wrong. If fans thought Dillon Dube was a brave and sympathetic hero for getting mental health support and feel betrayed now, then that’s on them.

It's an interesting conversation.

There are plenty of convicted criminals receiving mental health treatment in the form of therapy. Is mental health a label reserved for the worthy/innocent because of the positive & sympathetic associations tied to that term? Is this a cultural conundrum because we don't have more specific terms for things under the umbrella of "mental health"?

Listing both dube and kylington's leave of absences under mental health leave doesn't sit well with people for pretty obvious reasons, and yet, if he was admitted somewhere or under care, it by definition wouldn't be untrue. It's a murky situation.

I guess it depends on whether or not the team knew more than the mental health aspect when leave was requested. Because I think no matter what, coming off the heels of the kylington situation, if they knew the larger implications they should've steered well clear of the wording they opted for.

They should've kept it as vague as possible. Personal reasons would've more than sufficed since they owe no one outside of league offices an explanation. The specificity of it leads me to believe they may have actually had their heads in the sand, because of just how predictably bad it would look.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

It’s weird that people are more upset at the Flames for a PR blunder than they are at Dillon Dube for allegedly participating in gang rape.

I’m willing to forgive the Flames for what they did. I’m not sure I could say the same about Dillon Dube.

Cut ties with him as soon as possible and all is forgiven. Nobody here has any clue what the Flames did or didn’t know. Nobody knows what the NHL and Hockey Canada did or did not disclose to teams during the investigation.

I think a lot of the outrage is being misdirected.

Actually I think this is easily explained. Dube may or may not be guilty. We won't know that for a long time. Guilty until proven innocent is a bedrock of our liberal democracy and it's fair for people to withhold final judgment until a Court makes a determination. (I also think, at this point, it's fair to have a different standard of proof than a Court of law and say "where there's smoke there's fire, screw that guy", and plenty of people are doing that.)

But the Flames' involvement doesn't have this dimension. Whether Dube is ultimately guilty or not is not the same thing as knowing that the reason for his mental health leave is that he is going to be charged with a pretty heinous crime. If the Flames knew that and put out the statement they did, there's no element of "let the Courts sort it out and I'll pass judgment after they do". If you think it's morally reprehensible for the Flames to make a mental health statement while knowing the reason for the mental health crisis, that's everything you need to know on the subject.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The reason people feel betrayed by the ‘mental health’ wording is because they feel there’s a moral dimension to seeking mental health treatment. Instead of shaming people who seek mental health support, we now valourize them. But as we normalize talking openly about mental health, we need to move past that. There’s no more moral moral dimension to seeking mental health treatment than there is to seeking treatment for diabetes.

If Dube did seek out mental health treatment, and his agent communicated that to the Flames, who then referenced it in their press release, then I don’t think the Flames did anything wrong. If fans thought Dillon Dube was a brave and sympathetic hero for getting mental health support and feel betrayed now, then that’s on them.

1. Creating a broad and nebulous umbrella for "mental health reasons" does nothing to move the needle forward in terms of demystifying and destigmatizing the concept to benefit those who suffer from actual health problems in this area, to say nothing of what the connection to dealing with the consequences of having committed a heinous crime does for those efforts;

2. The moral response to people seeking mental health treatment is unavoidable because it's inextricably intertwined with empathy, which in turn is intertwined with the nature of the health issue for which someone is seeking treatment. People have a similar moral response when someone is fighting cancer. Similarly, they would also feel betrayed having expressed that moral response only to learn that the person simply claimed to have cancer to elicit sympathy before the announcement that they had raped someone.

[Wastedyouth]

This thread is....

Oh boy.