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

[djsFlames]

Those 1 year suspensions had better happen.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Yup, you made your point. Anyone else? All because I suggested these guys might have communicated with eachother to get their stories straight and it might be hard to prove wrongdoing. For that mere suggestion I got called "stupid". So anyone else or can we move on?

You pretty much suggested I didn’t know what I was talking about.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You pretty much suggested I didn’t know what I was talking about.

I did and you proved I was wrong. Right? So I walked away. We had a discussion and you educated me on where there were cases that proved your point. That is what this board is supposed to be. I am referring to all the other drive by posts that either add nothing to the discussion or are just plain attacks. We all cheer for the same team and yet there seems to be an overwhelming amount of attacking eachother and making petty posts just to try and piss the other poster off.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Sandman

Seriously, what does "dissentowner" mean?

Back in the early 2000's I owned a punk/alternative bar named dissent. It is dissent owner.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

I deleted a bunch of off-topic posts, many which contained insults.

Please just stick to the topic. Thanks.

[Boblobla]

I hope I never make a post that is rebutted by M Bates... He speaks them words good.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Those 1 year suspensions had better happen.

Remember...my understanding is that its a 1-year suspension from 'Hockey Canada' not the NHL or anything else.

"Sorry boys, you cant play in the Spengler this year..."

Not exactly much of a punishment, its like a slap on the wrists with undercooked pasta.

Originally Posted by Boblobla

I hope I never make a post that is rebutted by M Bates... He speaks them words good.

I do love an MBates throw down. He just leaves it all on the mat!

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I guess I don't have much faith in them. If a certain journalist didn't break the lid off the Aldrich situation, the NHL would have been more than happy to keep it suppressed. It makes me think that the strategy works most of the time.

I'm not saying the NHL would do it out of the goodness of their heart, but I think there's a lot going here that limits the likelihood of them remaining anonymous.

First, the police are involved. If charges are laid, and there's definitely outside pressure to lay charges given the public outrage, then the NHL isn't making the choice.

Second, there are inquiries and investigations going on outside of the NHL's own. Again, that's going to be a lot more people involved, more easily for it to leak if the names aren't released officially through those channels. Especially with the NDA being removed from the victm's settlement.

Third, exactly like you said about Aldrich only coming to attention because of an incredible journalist, there's going to be a ton trying to make a name for themselves here trying to be able to release the names first.

Finally, the NHL isn't a homogeneous group. It's nearing a prisoner dilemma right now. Unlike Aldrich where you had like a single victim report to a single person who went onto to talk to four people and some rumours in the locker-room, this one there's just so many people involved. Who wants to risk tarnishing their reputation like Toews or lose their career like Quenneville? Which players on the team not involved want to have that cloud hanging over them? Again emphasizing that it's only an example and not an accusation but would Dorion sign Formenton if he knew he was a player involved? When/if it gets released does he want to have to answer why he gave an alleged rapist a contract and have to fall on the sword there?

I think we're in the quiet before the storm. If only to limit bad publicity, certain teams probably don't want to start the season with (especially depth) players involved on their roster and have to answer to angry fans why they went into the season knowingly playing a rapist. They're certainly in a tough situation, especially because the accusations haven't been near proven, but that now means you could have the teams wanting the NHL to take action to wash their own hands of the situation.

[OptimalTates]

But yes, Hockey Canada's own admission is that this does happen all the time and have been suppressed. But tides are shifting, a lot of terrible people squirming right now.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Sure, if the person has bad credibility or a padt littered with similiar actions. Tell me exactly how that applies to a bunch of young hockey players? It doesn't. So you are telling me that given no evidence and just testimony from both parties a judge will come back with a guilty verdict? BS, because the Crown wouldn't even touch that case to try and prosecute it with a 20 foot poll.

Already covered by others.

[Funkhouser]

Originally Posted by MBates

You are simply wrong in your beliefs on this point...and I see other posters already have provided you with examples quite easily. I would add that the vast majority of criminal cases, including sexual assault, are never the subject of media or written judgments so the fact more examples are not being cited to you in no way changes the fact that it happens all the time.

Others have also correctly noted that a prior history of sexual assault would in almost every case be deemed irrelevant and highly prejudicial to a new accusation and would be kept from being known by the judge or jury deciding guilt or innocence. The main exception being if there is a specific and detailed pattern of committing the offence (modus operandi or "M.O." in tv / movie terms)

To try and still be constructive...

The word you are searching for is corroborate or corroboration. One place you can find it being used is in the current Criminal Code of Canada, section 274, under the heading "Corroboration not required":



So, basically, for sexual offences, corroboration is not needed and it is wrong for a judge to suggest to a jury that it is.

But wait, there's more...

In the context of whether a person could be convicted of a crime on the basis of even the inherently risky evidence of a jailhouse informant, (spoiler alert, they still can) the Supreme Court of Canada said this (back in 2009):



https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc.../2009scc4.html

How has that been playing out as of late? (since 2014):



https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...t-cases-metoo/

I am not saying it tells us anything about what will happen with these pending Hockey Canada allegations, but it is an interesting article worth reading and one that I think further undermines your argument.

This guy LAWS!!

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by Locke

Remember...my understanding is that its a 1-year suspension from 'Hockey Canada' not the NHL or anything else.

"Sorry boys, you cant play in the Spengler this year..."

Not exactly much of a punishment, its like a slap on the wrists with undercooked pasta.



I do love an MBates throw down. He just leaves it all on the mat!

Ffs...

So coaches can have an instance of misconduct/racist remarks 10 years ago and lose their positions (regardless of the level at which it occurred), but we can have rapists active on our NHL rosters?

And be concealed/protected from being identified as such?

If the Flames didn't make their miraculous overhaul I'd be teetering on the edge of being done with the sport for a while.

Garbage.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

I'm not saying the NHL would do it out of the goodness of their heart, but I think there's a lot going here that limits the likelihood of them remaining anonymous.

First, the police are involved. If charges are laid, and there's definitely outside pressure to lay charges given the public outrage, then the NHL isn't making the choice.

Second, there are inquiries and investigations going on outside of the NHL's own. Again, that's going to be a lot more people involved, more easily for it to leak if the names aren't released officially through those channels. Especially with the NDA being removed from the victm's settlement.

Third, exactly like you said about Aldrich only coming to attention because of an incredible journalist, there's going to be a ton trying to make a name for themselves here trying to be able to release the names first.

Finally, the NHL isn't a homogeneous group. It's nearing a prisoner dilemma right now. Unlike Aldrich where you had like a single victim report to a single person who went onto to talk to four people and some rumours in the locker-room, this one there's just so many people involved. Who wants to risk tarnishing their reputation like Toews or lose their career like Quenneville? Which players on the team not involved want to have that cloud hanging over them? Again emphasizing that it's only an example and not an accusation but would Dorion sign Formenton if he knew he was a player involved? When/if it gets released does he want to have to answer why he gave an alleged rapist a contract and have to fall on the sword there?

I think we're in the quiet before the storm. If only to limit bad publicity, certain teams probably don't want to start the season with (especially depth) players involved on their roster and have to answer to angry fans why they went into the season knowingly playing a rapist. They're certainly in a tough situation, especially because the accusations haven't been near proven, but that now means you could have the teams wanting the NHL to take action to wash their own hands of the situation.

I think a lot will hinge on how the police review of the case plays out. Their investigation in 2018 came to the conclusion that they could not build a case. It wasn't that long ago and with a lot of the same people probably still working there, they probably won't be in a big rush to over turn the previous findings.

Without a criminal case, I think journalists are going to be really careful about what they report and the NHL will likely avoid supplementary discipline. There are enough lawyers posting in here so I will stay in my lane, but would think that legal problems could arise if the accused are disciplined without a case against them.

We will see what the police do I guess. They probably aren't too eager to admit that they were wrong.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

We will see what the police do I guess. They probably aren't too eager to admit that they were wrong.

I don't think it's a question of being wrong. It's likely a case of new evidence surfacing.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

The criminal investigation shouldn't make that much of a difference to the NHL investigation, as a decision not to charge does not mean that the NHL couldn't still levy some discipline. However, my guess the NHL would wait until the police comes back with its report, as it can take some semi-legit cover, declining comment until that investigation is over. I have been saying all along though, that IF no criminal charges are laid, I don't think the NHL will discipline. (Or if they do, it will be so minimal (2 games or something) so as to somehow make it worse. Because that is what they do).

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Back in the early 2000's I owned a punk/alternative bar named dissent. It is dissent owner.

Ah. I was pronouncing wrong all this time!

[Locke]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Ffs...

So coaches can have an instance of misconduct/racist remarks 10 years ago and lose their positions (regardless of the level at which it occurred), but we can have rapists active on our NHL rosters?

And be concealed/protected from being identified as such?

If the Flames didn't make their miraculous overhaul I'd be teetering on the edge of being done with the sport for a while.

Garbage.

I could be wrong, but they werent NHL players at the time, the NHL nor any of their teams were involved in any way.

This is Hockey Canada's baby.

[dustygoon]

Highly recommend listening to 32 thoughts podcast this week “Back to Work”. Friedman FINALLY let’s loose on hockey Canada. I’ve been disappointed with top reporters not leading this discussion more (perhaps out of fear).

Scott Smith was the one repping HC at the women’s golf game. Friedman called him selfish and then said how could sponsors say this is ok? Shots fired.

[TheoFleury]

Originally Posted by Locke

I could be wrong, but they werent NHL players at the time, the NHL nor any of their teams were involved in any way.



This is Hockey Canada's baby.

There's lots of skeletons to go around, no one's closet is exempt I bet. The more we learn, the more gross it seems, but you could fill a warehouse full of the #### we don't know...

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Locke

I could be wrong, but they werent NHL players at the time, the NHL nor any of their teams were involved in any way.

This is Hockey Canada's baby.

Unless they NHL and NHL team knew or ought to have known, that for me is concerning.