[News] Jake Virtanen on leave from the Canucks after sexual misconduct allegation

[GordonBlue]

I know nothing of the player in real life so I won't condemn the guy on an anonymous allegation.
Let's see what happens with the police investigation.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

I know nothing of the player in real life so I won't condemn the guy on an anonymous allegation.
Let's see what happens with the police investigation.

Agree on the second part.

However, there's good reasons why the alleged victim should remain anonymous. You can't dismiss the allegations merely based on victim anonymity.

There's two parts in play here:

1. "No Means No"
2. Sexual harassment in the workplace.

Being somewhat cynical, I suspect the swift actions taken by the Canucks and league are strongly influenced by their legal counsel.

I'd like to think league executives are also taking their stand because they are also fathers, brothers and husbands to young women, but I suspect there's still undercurrents of misogyny within the sport.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

The #### is this?

If things went down as this woman has stated, what Virtanen did was rape. He's not getting 'cancelled'. This isn't some joke. He forced himself on someone who made it clear that they weren't into it. This is a crime.

Obviously, he is innocent until proven guilty but this #### isn't some internet meme. It should be taken more seriously than a glib drive by.

You're kind of proving that posters point.
Innocent until proven guilty but not. You're already stating definitively that he did it.

He very well may be guilty but he's already cancelled regardless.

[shadowlord]

According to The Hockey Guy, these allegations were made in 2017 and the victim went to police at that time but the player involved was not named publicly. There wasn't enough evidence to press charges because police deemed it to be a he-said/she-said situation.

It was only recently that the perpetrator was actually identified to the media as Virtanen.

So there won't be any police investigation without new evidence.

While there's not enough evidence to prosecute, this information doesn't completely exonerate Virtanen either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDUkTfZUnb4

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

You're kind of proving that posters point.
Innocent until proven guilty but not. You're already stating definitively that he did it.

He very well may be guilty but he's already cancelled regardless.

“If things went down as this woman has stated” is right there.

He’s not stating definitively that he did it. What are you talking about?

[Snuffleupagus]

Three and a half years later she speaks up? the Patrick Kane incident went nowhere and I suspect this one will too

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by shadowlord

According to The Hockey Guy, these allegations were made in 2017 and the victim went to police at that time but the player involved was not named publicly. There wasn't enough evidence to press charges and because he-said/she-said situation.

It was only recently that the perpetrator was actually identified to the media as Virtanen.

So there won't be any police investigation without new evidence.

While there's not enough evidence to prosecute, this information doesn't completely exonerate Virtanen either.

Do we know if the victim is filing a civil suit?
If so, she'd carry out her own discovery.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

You're kind of proving that posters point.
Innocent until proven guilty but not. You're already stating definitively that he did it.

He very well may be guilty but he's already cancelled regardless.

“Cancelled” how?

The use of this word to discredit consequences that happen due to actions really pisses me off. It’s called consequences. What was “cancelled”?? His contract? Nope. His… life? Nope.

Also colour me shocked that people still blame victims for not calling the world about it five minutes later. Holy #### people.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

There's two parts in play here:

1. "No Means No"
2. Sexual harassment in the workplace.

From what I’ve read it doesn’t sound like she was an employee of the Canucks organization. Has this been confirmed?

[djsFlames]

Agreed to meet up and go to a hotel, which she obviously voluntarily walked into with him to get to where it happened. A crime is a crime and Virtanen doesn't seem bright at all, but she wasn't exactly putting herself in a good spot to get people on her side either. If you're not looking to confuse your signal, maybe refuse to go in there to begin with and insist on a coffee shop?

I dunno, this just has the Kane controversy written all over it.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Agreed to meet up and go to a hotel, which she obviously voluntarily walked into with him to get to where it happened. A crime is a crime and Virtanen doesn't seem bright at all, but she wasn't exactly putting herself in a good spot to get people on her side either. If you're not looking to confuse your signal, maybe refuse to go in there to begin with and insist on a coffee shop?

I dunno, this just has the Kane controversy written all over it.

They could have literally been in the middle of intercourse and it would still be her right to say “stop” and the obligation of the other party to do so. This is dumb.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

From what I’ve read it doesn’t sound like she was an employee of the Canucks organization. Has this been confirmed?

I could be mistaken.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

They could have literally been in the middle of intercourse and it would still be her right to say “stop” and the obligation of the other party to do so. This is dumb.

Did I say she didn't have that right?

No. I'm saying this looks a lot like the Kane controversy based on the context. Nothing more was implied.

I'm talking about this matter of factly based on the information available. You guys are far too easily triggered. Don't do that.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Three and a half years later she speaks up? the Patrick Kane incident went nowhere and I suspect this one will too

3+ years ago Virtanen was on an ELC . Now he makes $2.5M.

I am not going to say that I dont believe this woman because I dont know either way, she may be 100% right, I do not know, the courts can figure that out.

But she has a keen sense of timing.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Agreed to meet up and go to a hotel, which she obviously voluntarily walked into with him to get to where it happened. A crime is a crime and Virtanen doesn't seem bright at all, but she wasn't exactly putting herself in a good spot to get people on her side either. If you're not looking to confuse your signal, maybe refuse to go in there to begin with and insist on a coffee shop?

This post terrifies me.

Mercifully you stopped short of bringing up how she may have been dressed at the time.

[Hockeyguy15]

I think this thread is a perfect example of why she didn't come out publicly 3 years ago.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

This post terrifies me.

Mercifully you stopped short of bringing up how she may have been dressed at the time.

Cool. I mean if that's how your mind fills in the gaps..

[codynw]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Agreed to meet up and go to a hotel, which she obviously voluntarily walked into with him to get to where it happened. A crime is a crime and Virtanen doesn't seem bright at all, but she wasn't exactly putting herself in a good spot to get people on her side either. If you're not looking to confuse your signal, maybe refuse to go in there to begin with and insist on a coffee shop?

I dunno, this just has the Kane controversy written all over it.

You know it's very possible that she was interested in something happening, but something that happened at the hotel or any other point after meeting up with him made her change her mind? That's where it's on the other person to stop what they're doing.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by codynw

You know it's very possible that she was interested in something happening, but something that happened at the hotel or any other point after meeting up with him made her change her mind? That's where it's on the other person to stop what they're doing.

If that was indeed the case, they should add that information to the story. It would help her case and set it apart from the likes of other cases like Kane's.

Based on the information presented there, it doesn't look favorable that there will be enough there to help her case. I guess we'll have to see.

[bluejays]

How many posters have posted previous half-stories about this guy? I believe someone even posted something about him just as the team got covid. Seems like a pretty not-so-nice guy at the very least. Generally I'm good to let all parties have their day in court, but when there are enough rumors about someone being a grease ball, there's probably a small fire there. Everyone has to grow up at some point and if it's true, I really hope the league sets a high bar on the bro-culture.