Hockey Canada, CHL settle lawsuit over alleged sexual assault involving WJ players

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s not banning them from working in their field, though, it’s essentially one employer letting them go and choosing not to re-hire them. There are other leagues, other teams, and other countries they can apply their trade.

Being in the NHL is a privilege and I would not be surprised if most contracts come with clauses that stipulate the type of off-ice conduct that is allowed. Being in the NHL isn’t just about playing hockey, it’s about representing a team, selling jerseys, etc. So, you can definitely see how this would make it tough for a player to live up to their contract.

True. But if I felt like I was wrongfully dismissed and my employer said "well just go work in Europe" I would be suing the pants off them.

If any of these players get banned/fired/terminated, you can bet they would sue, and they would win IMO. You can't just terminate someone like that. That's why the Bill Peters thing was convoluted and he "resigned" and was not fired.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

The thing is, the NHL is their job. Are you legally allowed to ban someone from working because of a criminal past?

They have not been convicted of anything (which was a miscarriage of justice IMO), but even if they were, can/should we ban people from working in their field?

A serious criminal offence is pretty much the end of the line for a lawyer. Disbarment is almost an inevitable outcome.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

A serious criminal offence is pretty much the end of the line for a lawyer. Disbarment is almost an inevitable outcome.

You could even possibly be disbarred for misuse of trust funds that might not rise to a criminal conviction. All sorts of professions have the ability to ban people from working.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s not banning them from working in their field, though, it’s essentially one employer letting them go and choosing not to re-hire them. There are other leagues, other teams, and other countries they can apply their trade.

Related example: Alex Formenton played in the Swiss league this year.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

True. But if I felt like I was wrongfully dismissed and my employer said "well just go work in Europe" I would be suing the pants off them.

If any of these players get banned/fired/terminated, you can bet they would sue, and they would win IMO. You can't just terminate someone like that. That's why the Bill Peters thing was convoluted and he "resigned" and was not fired.

Oh, I’m sure they’d get whatever is remaining on their contract, but that will likely be the last one they get.

It’s not the same as getting fired. They work on a contractual basis with set term limits. Once that term is over they’re under no obligation to give you another contract. You can’t legally force the NHL to give a player a contract.

[transplant99]

I read an article some time ago about all this and possible ramifications...but i cant find it now.

It may have just been the reporter/writer spin on things but it was suggested that because none of those involved were working in the NHL at the time, that anti-trust issues were part of the equation (at least state side) and the league could not "ban" them from playing in the NHL.

At least that was the gist of it.

Also, and it cant be said enough, no one has been convicted of anything at this point...hell no one has even been accused directly/by name even if its fairly easy to infer who is and is not involved.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Oh, I’m sure they’d get whatever is remaining on their contract, but that will likely be the last one they get.

It’s not the same as getting fired. They work on a contractual basis with set term limits. Once that term is over they’re under no obligation to give you another contract. You can’t legally force the NHL to give a player a contract.

Yes, well if they paid the balance of their contracts, then yes.

I thought you meant you tear up the contracts and say #### you.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I read an article some time ago about all this and possible ramifications...but i cant find it now.

It may have just been the reporter/writer spin on things but it was suggested that because none of those involved were working in the NHL at the time, that anti-trust issues were part of the equation (at least state side) and the league could not "ban" them from playing in the NHL.

At least that was the gist of it.

Also, and it cant be said enough, no one has been convicted of anything at this point...hell no one has even been accused directly/by name even if its fairly easy to infer who is and is not involved.

This true, however, the details of the alleged assault are not in question. There is video evidence, text messages, and corroboration of the details. The only thing in question is whether or not the act of 8 people showing up in a hotel room and having, in their minds, group sex, was a consensual encounter when the one female involved claims it wasn't. Personally, I don't need a court to tell me that it's not, even if they somehow find that it "technically" is.

The only question that remains is who was there, and who knew about it and never said anything, and IMO all of them should never work again.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Yes, well if they paid the balance of their contracts, then yes.

I thought you meant you tear up the contracts and say #### you.

Yeah I wasn’t really clear.

I think it’s possible they are kicked off their teams/“suspended” but with full pay and basically told to just go away. Similar to the Bill Peters scenario.

Maybe if it’s guys who weren’t directly involved but “in the room” or whatever, they come back eventually (like Quenneville). I think anyone directly involved gets unofficially blacklisted from the NHL, though.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

They are playing/practicing hockey...

Yeah I just meant how regimented practicing already is define between the NHL/NHLPA that there wouldn’t be wording in a contract relating to it. I mean the Canucks got fined for letting guys voluntarily practice in the off season last year.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

True. But if I felt like I was wrongfully dismissed and my employer said "well just go work in Europe" I would be suing the pants off them.

If any of these players get banned/fired/terminated, you can bet they would sue, and they would win IMO. You can't just terminate someone like that. That's why the Bill Peters thing was convoluted and he "resigned" and was not fired.

How can you say they would win when you have no idea what the reason would be that they had their contract terminated?

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

The thing is, the NHL is their job. Are you legally allowed to ban someone from working because of a criminal past?

They have not been convicted of anything (which was a miscarriage of justice IMO), but even if they were, can/should we ban people from working in their field?

They sure can, as the contract says it can be terminated.

And they don’t need to be convicted.

The standard for the morality clause would not be the same as a criminal case, which is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. It’s a balance of probabilities for a civil case.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

They are already talking contract extension with him, I have feeling he is not involved in this.

Or this is holding up contact negotiations.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Boreal

Or this is holding up contact negotiations.

They have already exchanged concepts on a contract based on what Conroy says doesn't sound like they are taking it slow.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

They are already talking contract extension with him, I have feeling he is not involved in this.

Based on the statement his agency put out at the time I would wager he was involved. I mean maybe his agency is just piss poor at PR but folk who weren't involved at all would have had a different response then the one that Cowan gave.

[mile]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Based on the statement his agency put out at the time I would wager he was involved. I mean maybe his agency is just piss poor at PR but folk who weren't involved at all would have had a different response then the one that Cowan gave.

Bean, Hart, Point, Clague, Kyrou, Raddysh gave very similar sounding statements (did not engage in wrongdoing, co-operated with police, false statements constituting defamation) too. I wouldn't read too much into that

[NegativeSpace]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I read an article some time ago about all this and possible ramifications...but i cant find it now.

It may have just been the reporter/writer spin on things but it was suggested that because none of those involved were working in the NHL at the time, that anti-trust issues were part of the equation (at least state side) and the league could not "ban" them from playing in the NHL.

At least that was the gist of it.

Also, and it cant be said enough, no one has been convicted of anything at this point...hell no one has even been accused directly/by name even if its fairly easy to infer who is and is not involved.

In fairness people have been accused. That is what was settled. No one has been accused publicly to protect the victim.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Eric Vail]

The CFL has terminated contracts of players and refused to register contracts when teams tried to bring in players with unsavory pasts. Here is Nate Holly who was a linebacker with the Stampeders,

https://3downnation.com/2021/11/17/c...r-nate-holley/

The CFL has decided to not register a contract for LB Nate Holley in accordance with our Violence Against Women Policy. We will not be commenting further out of respect for the privacy of those involved.

The Argos announced on Nov. 3 that the club had signed Holley following a stint with the Miami Dolphins of the NFL. He travelled to Toronto and completed his quarantine, but the league has elected not to register the contract.

snip

Holley was charged with felony kidnapping and assault in November 2016 and was dismissed from the Kent State football program. He was found not guilt in February 2017 prior to signing in the CFL.

Here is another:

The CFL and B.C. Lions have nullified Euclid Cummings’ contract after it came to light Wednesday that the defensive lineman was facing criminal charges in a Vancouver court for sexual assault and threats.

Provincial court documents show the 6-foot-3, 300-pound Atlanta native was charged last April with four criminal offences involving two alleged victims stemming from incidents in Vancouver on Oct. 16, 2016. His team at the time, the Winnipeg Blue Bombers, played their regular-season finale at B.C. Place on Oct. 14, 2016.

Cummings is charged with sexual assault, assault and uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm to one person, and the sexual assault of another.

The CFL released a statement Wednesday. “Upon learning of the criminal charges facing Euclid Cummings, CFL Commissioner Randy Ambrosie has voided his contract with the B.C. Lions. As these charges are before the courts, the CFL will offer no further comment.”

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Based on the statement his agency put out at the time I would wager he was involved. I mean maybe his agency is just piss poor at PR but folk who weren't involved at all would have had a different response then the one that Cowan gave.

This is a pretty big leap given what we know. I would take that wager.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

This is a pretty big leap given what we know. I would take that wager.

I wouldn't say that it's that big a leap... several of them came out and said flat out that they weren't involved, Dube's representatives said that he didn't do anything wrong.... which isn't the same thing. If he wasn't involved then why wouldn't he put out a statement to the effect of "I wasn't involved, wasn't in the room, nothing to do with me"?

Maybe his reps are just bad at PR but if it was me I'd want to make sure that if I wasn't involved that I put out a statement that was completely unambiguous about that.