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

[MissTeeks]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1577760817600249858

[Locke]

So? Gallows in the Town Square at dawn?

[Goriders]

I think you burn witches over a pile of sticks.

[Locke]

We could use the sticks to stab them through the heart...just to be sure.

Maybe melt their phony championship rings down to make silver bullets just to cover all of our bases?

Bottom line though is that Hockey Canada needs a 'Fire Enema.'

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

The problem isn't that they chose to settle vs go to court.
The problem is that they've been covering it up and staying quite about it.

In an organization as big as HC, you're going to have people that cause problems, that's not unique to HC or any other organization, and that's not the issue.
The issue is that instead of speaking publicly about those people/incidents, and trying to prevent more in the future, they chose to cover it up, which creates a terrible culture.

For most organizations the problem was that there was an incident, and fixing it would mean doing what they can to make sure it didn't happen again.

For HC the problem was that people might find out there was an incident, and fixing it meant making sure no one did.

Yeah. And I’m not sure that their mandate necessarily extended to settling for anyone other than themselves. In other words, they probably could have settled on behalf of the organization to remove themselves from the suit (and TBF the liability of the organization would have been the weakest part of the case). Instead, they settled on behalf of the participants and tried to ensure that, via an NDA, the allegations would never surface. An alternative - a settlement to compensate the accuser, plus an open investigation and programs to be better in the future.

[rogermexico]

Hockey Canada has had repeated opportunities to take actions or make statements intended to show an angry public that they take the matter seriously and want to take steps to change their organizational culture, to try and make sure these kinds of events don't happen anymore. They just have to say they're going to try, demonstrate some contrition and earnestness, and show a plan. Then follow up and show progress.
No one expects them to solve the societal problem of sexual assault. What people do expect of them is to make statements demonstrating that they agree that sexual assault is a problem, a problem that they as an organization find unacceptable, and a problem that they are committed to address within their own organization, with a roadmap of what that looks like, and some goals and objectives around that roadmap that the public could hold them accountable to.
That would have bought them some good will.
Instead, they have taken every opportunity to make denials, act defensive, deflect, and in general, demonstrated a degree of tone deafness that has poured gasoline on the whole thing every time they've opened their mouths.
The proof is in the porridge, to quote Rhett Warrener. And this is some ugly porridge.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Yeah. And I’m not sure that their mandate necessarily extended to settling for anyone other than themselves. In other words, they probably could have settled on behalf of the organization to remove themselves from the suit (and TBF the liability of the organization would have been the weakest part of the case). Instead, they settled on behalf of the participants and tried to ensure that, via an NDA, the allegations would never surface. An alternative - a settlement to compensate the accuser, plus an open investigation and programs to be better in the future.

This is one of the many many baffling things here. HCs legal risk should have been pretty limited, unless it is demonstrated that they were enablers.

It seems they settled to make sure nobody found out they were enablers and continued to enable over and over.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

This is one of the many many baffling things here. HCs legal risk should have been pretty limited, unless it is demonstrated that they were enablers.

It seems they settled to make sure nobody found out they were enablers and continued to enable over and over.

Can you expand on enabling? Did they encourage the activity?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Can you expand on enabling? Did they encourage the activity?

By making it possible for the people involved in this behaviour to avoid consequences.

[Ryan Coke]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Yeah. And I’m not sure that their mandate necessarily extended to settling for anyone other than themselves. In other words, they probably could have settled on behalf of the organization to remove themselves from the suit (and TBF the liability of the organization would have been the weakest part of the case). Instead, they settled on behalf of the participants and tried to ensure that, via an NDA, the allegations would never surface. An alternative - a settlement to compensate the accuser, plus an open investigation and programs to be better in the future.

But isn’t an NDA pretty standard in out of court civil settlements?

There wasn’t any attempt at stifling criminal proceedings was there?

Is there evidence that this was more than lawyers managing financial risk, which happens everywhere?

There’s no doubt HC could be better at public “spin”, but I’m trying to understand the real level of maliciousness to their actions.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

But isn’t an NDA pretty standard in out of court civil settlements?

There wasn’t any attempt at stifling criminal proceedings was there?

Is there evidence that this was more than lawyers managing financial risk, which happens everywhere?

There’s no doubt HC could be better at public “spin”, but I’m trying to understand the real level of maliciousness to their actions.

Maybe in those types of cases. But no, not normally for settlements in general. It’s usually just a term that no one admits liability. But my point is that if HC settled for themselves and not the players, no NDA would really be needed.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Goriders

The victim agreed to the settlement and had legal council. That’s not covering something up. She could have gone to court.

Is that what you really think happened? Victims settle because they don't want to deal with the shame of going public about it.

Often times they are harassed to take the payoffs and shut up. Given how Hockey Canada is acting here, I wouldn't be surprised if that happened many times.

[Wastedyouth]

Hook line and sinker, eh Goriders?

[Monahammer]

Timmies breaking ties and now Canadian Tire saying they are permanently terminating their relationship with HC.

How is it possible that all of these clowns havent hit the pavement yet? Why even consider salvaging it at this point from a government perspective? Start over and leave everyone who has touched current iteration of HC completely out.

[Jiri Hrdina]

What would also help is if prominent NHLers came out and said they will no longer play for Team Canada under the current leadership and structure of Hockey Canada.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Can you expand on enabling? Did they encourage the activity?

Yes, they encouraged the activity.

I have never quoted the bible before in my life, but here goes:

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

What would also help is if prominent NHLers came out and said they will no longer play for Team Canada under the current leadership and structure of Hockey Canada.

I fully expect this to happen.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Yes, they encouraged the activity.

I have never quoted the bible before in my life, but here goes:

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Your record is intact. That isn't a bible quote. It's often attributed to Edmund Burke but that seems to be incorrect. But it's for sure not biblical.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Goriders

The victim agreed to the settlement and had legal council. That’s not covering something up. She could have gone to court.

A. It's "counsel".
B. Yes, the victim agreed, for a sum of money, with those strings attached. We all know the pressures to settle in these cases.
C. Hockey Canada could have settled without the NDA, not tried to absolved the players, addressed the underlying issues, and it would have helped their own reputation. None of those things were on the victim's plate.

[3thirty]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

What would also help is if prominent NHLers came out and said they will no longer play for Team Canada under the current leadership and structure of Hockey Canada.

Didn't McDavid already offer support of Hockey Canada.

“I’m very proud to be Canadian, very proud to represent Hockey Canada … obviously a situation that is terrible for everybody.”

https://www.hockeyfeed.com/nhl-news/...-filled-summer