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

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by Goriders

So what would players have to do in that scenario. Call their GM or union rep right before having sex to clear it first? That sounds a little unreasonable. If not hard to manage.

That’s the point.

Don’t.

It also isn’t sex either it’s homosocial group sex.

It seems relatively straight forward that if skiing is risking you career, group sex is also probably not a low risk activity.

However this is not an intelligent culture, literate in probability. The overall culture seems to really have difficulties understanding more subjective terms like morality clauses, that putting activities like group sex into a hazardous activities clause might wake them up.

But maybe this case has? We’ll see.

No ski resort is going to stop a player on an NHL contract from buying a lift ticket.

At the same time no person in an NHL front office with a brain would give a player permission to buy that lift ticket and have a good time.

Privileges, which is what any professional contract formalizes and details with the rights and responsibilities of all parties, can be taken terminated when those details are breached. Which is obviously why they’re called privileges.

Professional sports is a season of a persons life and ends for 99% of people before the age of 35. There is a lot of life left to do and explore anything or everything they want after they are no longer restricted by a standard player contact.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

If group sex is a hazardous activity then you can call me Super Dave Osborne.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Goriders

I could see alot of players wondering what would happen to their career if they were in a situation where they might be wrongly accused by someone and that they would want to be able to continue their career if found not guilty.

This is 100% the reason why the NHLPA are challenging the NHL’s decision. The PA can’t force the league to allow these players to play or to sign them to new contracts so it has nothing to do with getting the players their jobs back. They have to protect the rights of their other players(who probably largely hate the world junior players involved for what they did) and this could set a bad precedent.

It doesn’t help that the league has already brought back the likes of Bowman, Quenville and MacIsaac, because it gives these players a strong argument that the league’s action in their case are arbitrary.

As does the Corey Perry and the Blackhawks contract cancellation.

https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/...ry-termination

What’s important in the Perry example is that no grievance was filed and the league still agreed to a (undisclosed) settlement, which suggests they knew there was some legal obligation owed to a player in a situation where their contract was being cancelled, even if they may have arguably had just cause. My guess is that something similar happens in this case if any of these players still have any years left on their existing contracts(don’t know if that’s the case of not). Personally I doubt these guys are all(if any) going to be signed by teams even if they are made eligible.

Public statements like this from the commissioner aren’t hurting the case for those players either(from the Perry article linked above):

"He took a little time away," Bettman said. "In the final analysis, clubs will decide what they're comfortable with to a certain extent and what they're not, and in this case the Blackhawks decided it was best if he was away from the team."

The insinuations by some in this thread that by challenging the league’s decision it must mean the PA condones the actions of the players seem to stem from a lack of understanding of the ramifications for all of the other players and their rights as employees of the league. The acquitted players aren’t going to be back playing in the league if the NHL, its franchise owners or GMs don’t want them to be, they hold all the cards on that one.

But if those players are legally entitled to some form of compensation or to be eligible to sign with a team(even if no one will sign them) then it is what it is, the same would apply if they aren’t legally entitled to anything. If they are though, all of the other PA members would have an interest in protecting that. I don’t think the league has done itself any favours to defend their current stance with how they as an employer have voluntarily handled similar situations with employees who didn’t have a Union for anyone to blame for them being allowed to work in the league again

My personal feelings about the actions of the players, quenville, bowman, etc don’t really matter when it comes to whether they can or can’t be hired by the league. My personal feelings do however impact where I as a potential customer spend my money though. Frankly I’d rather see no restrictions on hiring so I’m in a better position to decide whether I want to give my money to a business based on their natural choices instead of PR moves put in place because maybe they don’t want me to see what their natural choices would be.

[CFO]

I can see (if allowed) majority of them signing in Edmonton.

By the way, I was just in Edmonton - what a butthole of Alberta. Run down. Shady. It's a dump compared to Calgary.

[curves2000]

I may be wrong but usually isn't there evidence that usually comes out from both the prosecution and defense that is deemed inadmissible in court or would unjustly affect the jury's decision?

There may be things that will come out from the players perspective that may be very damaging reputation wise and the NHL is waiting for everything to completely settle before making a decision.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Bubba17

Maybe educate yourself.

Just go to Grok and type in "explain trevor bauer situation with Hill woman".

Never charged, paid no money and the only one convicted was her. She still owes Bauer $309K for defamation. But you continue to be the expert. The other women in Cleveland's case got no charges brought either. In fact the one woman is still going to trial for fraud and extortion. " One of these women, Darcy Esemonu, was indicted in Arizona in March 2024 on two felony counts, one for fraud involving Bauer and one for theft by extortion. The civil lawsuits related to her allegations were put on hold pending the outcome of her criminal trial, which was scheduled for June 2025 but has been delayed multiple times."

What was Hill charged with/convicted of?

If you can provide an answer with an actual source, I’ll forgive the complete embarrassment of you using Grok as a source. If you can’t, well…

There’s also a phone recording of Bauer admitting to hitting/punching her, and apologizing to her… which goes against “everything was faked/requested.” Since you’re in the business of making dumb stuff up.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

If group sex is a hazardous activity then you can call me Super Dave Osborne.

I don't care how much we argue about this, the multi-mirror set up doesn't make it a group event.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

I don't care how much we argue about this, the multi-mirror set up doesn't make it a group event.

Correct, it was simple a homosocial event, where sexual favours were just… you know… happening I guess?!?
Not a group thing.

[Remember1989]

When the rain washes
you clean, you’ll know.
You will know.

[Bubba17]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What was Hill charged with/convicted of?

If you can provide an answer with an actual source, I’ll forgive the complete embarrassment of you using Grok as a source. If you can’t, well…

There’s also a phone recording of Bauer admitting to hitting/punching her, and apologizing to her… which goes against “everything was faked/requested.” Since you’re in the business of making dumb stuff up.

Right no criminal charge for Hill, just a civil suit where she currently owes Bauer $309K. So she is totally innocent, but less so than Bauer who has no money owed to Hill and no criminal charges.

Move the goal post again. Please show where Bauer was charged with anything in the cases you mentioned with 6 women (when only 4 actually accused him but you stick with the 6). Also, please include your "credible sources".

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Boreal

That’s the point.

Don’t.

It also isn’t sex either it’s homosocial group sex.

It seems relatively straight forward that if skiing is risking you career, group sex is also probably not a low risk activity.

However this is not an intelligent culture, literate in probability. The overall culture seems to really have difficulties understanding more subjective terms like morality clauses, that putting activities like group sex into a hazardous activities clause might wake them up.

But maybe this case has? We’ll see.

No ski resort is going to stop a player on an NHL contract from buying a lift ticket.

At the same time no person in an NHL front office with a brain would give a player permission to buy that lift ticket and have a good time.

Privileges, which is what any professional contract formalizes and details with the rights and responsibilities of all parties, can be taken terminated when those details are breached. Which is obviously why they’re called privileges.

Professional sports is a season of a persons life and ends for 99% of people before the age of 35. There is a lot of life left to do and explore anything or everything they want after they are no longer restricted by a standard player contact.

So crank up the group sex at 35??

Would bring a new angle to retirement parties.

[troutman]

After the Hockey Canada verdict, advocates fear survivors will fall silent

https://apple.news/A3Rl6csQ9QHqb9A2ajO8OOw

Ms. Dunn is the executive director of the London Abused Women’s Centre, an organization that provides counselling and support for women and girls in the region who have been abused, trafficked or sexually assaulted.

One of the major challenges organizations like hers encounters is helping survivors feel safe enough to seek help.

“There is just this overarching fear of not being believed,” she said. “After what happened yesterday, I think it’s a real possibility that some may choose to stay silent.


“I don’t remember the judge’s exact words, but when she started, she was talking about how rape myths have no place in the courts, and then she went right on into rape myths,” Ms. Dunn

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Bubba17

Right no criminal charge for Hill, just a civil suit where she currently owes Bauer $309K. So she is totally innocent, but less so than Bauer who has no money owed to Hill and no criminal charges.

Move the goal post again. Please show where Bauer was charged with anything in the cases you mentioned with 6 women (when only 4 actually accused him but you stick with the 6). Also, please include your "credible sources".

She owes money because she broke the terms of their zero dollar for each side settlement, not because she defamed him.

[Bubba17]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

She owes money because she broke the terms of their zero dollar for each side settlement, not because she defamed him.

Thanks for the correction. She only had to pay because she broke the agreement from when they dropped their suits against each other, 21 times.

From LA Times (hopefully a REPUTABLE SOURCE):

Bauer sued her in October, citing 21 similar claims on a podcast or on social media — all of them alleged violations of a settlement provision forbidding her from saying Bauer or any representative “paid her any money as consideration for the settlement.” Each alleged violation cost $10,000, according to the terms of the settlement agreement.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by YyjFlames

No… but it’s kind of funny for someone to say educate yourself and then point to a source who’s owner has intentionally limited its source material.

It goes both ways.

The researchers aggregated the slants of different LLMs created by the same companies. Collectively, they found that OpenAI models had the most intensely perceived left-leaning slant — four times greater than perceptions of Google, whose models were perceived as the least slanted overall. On average, models from Google and DeepSeek were seen as statistically indistinguishable from neutral, while models from Elon Musk’s xAI, which touts its commitment to unbiased output, were perceived as exhibiting the second-highest degree of left-leaning slant among both Democratic and Republican respondents.

But even Google's supposedly least biased LLM Gemini refused to depict white people in even appropriate contexts a year ago.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Bubba17

Right no criminal charge for Hill, just a civil suit where she currently owes Bauer $309K. So she is totally innocent, but less so than Bauer who has no money owed to Hill and no criminal charges.

Move the goal post again.

Who moved the goal posts? Maybe ask Grok what that term means before you use it lol. I’m literally addressing what YOU said.

Making up that someone was convicted of something when they weren’t even charged, and then mocking referencing a lawsuit they lost regarding their innocence when it has nothing to do with what you’re trying to defend, looks really embarrassing. Especially when you claim it was over something it wasn’t even for!

Making up that everything was “fake/requested” when there’s no proof of that and, instead, proof of Bauer admitting he did it and it was not OK and that he was sorry he did it, is crazy.

You can just admit you knew literally nothing about the Bauer situation, looked it up on “Grok” and got some genuinely terrible info. There’s really no excuse to getting corrected and responding “yeah but…” with another thing that needs to get corrected. It’s not even really on topic, it’s fine if you looked silly about it. Nobody cares. Move on.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Bubba17

Thanks for the correction. She only had to pay because she broke the agreement from when they dropped their suits against each other, 21 times.

From LA Times (hopefully a REPUTABLE SOURCE):

Bauer sued her in October, citing 21 similar claims on a podcast or on social media — all of them alleged violations of a settlement provision forbidding her from saying Bauer or any representative “paid her any money as consideration for the settlement.” Each alleged violation cost $10,000, according to the terms of the settlement agreement.

Yes, so her paying money had nothing to do with the sex allegations. Nothing was proven in court either way on that, so there's absolutely nothing to say Bauer was the victim of a malicious attack for money or to destory his career. Which was the argument being made.

[heep223]

Any media including LLMs should be taken with a grain of salt, they’re sometimes wrong (and will admit as such with some clarifying points or questions), and I’m sure will be biased jn certain ways, as the content they train on and the prompts they receive can be biased. They’re a reflection if the collective.

The machines just do what we tell them to do. Until it’s the other way around, that’s when things will get really entertaining