Quote:
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.