- This topic has 1,577 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 9 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
- The topic ‘Leaf Talk – 2025-26 Season’ is closed to new replies.
-
Posts
-
This is just retarded. Pissed just at the idea of them inquiring? Just asking questions?
The Leafs would be a better team with McLeod at league minimum than with Kampf. Same goes with Formenton at league minimum over Jarnkrok. Foote is better than having no RHD at all on the 3rd pair and he’s better than Myers too. Dube is a small skill guy but he’d fit in the top-6. He’s got a better history of scoring than Maccelli does, that’s for damn sure.
If the Leafs have the opportunity to improve the team by signing these guys for cheap contracts, they’d be stupid not too and so would anybody being pissy about the team improving over a bunch of bullshit they were NOT GUILTY for.
~Ignorant dumbassFormenton was even in the damn league when this all went down, but you think he’s a better option over Jarnkrok even after not playing for several years?!?!
Sure, they were not guilty of anything criminal, I agreed with that when I said they should be allowed the opportunity to play. But that doesn’t mean they didn’t make dumbass decisions that would hanging over the locker room and be a major distraction.
Yes, I don’t want players like that representing the team that I love. That’s why I ridicule Oiler fans for Kane and Bowman.
If these 5 players had names like Bedard, Matthews etc. in them do the players get suspended right away? Is the outcry to ban them from the league the same?
I personally don’t think so.
I’ll have to disagree with you on this. Legit, if ANY player in the NHL had charges brought against them, they would be immediately suspended. There probably is a “out” clause in every pro sports contract for cases like this. Players in the NBA and NFL get suspended all the time for legal issues.
I also don’t think the players would be successful in suing the league for lost wages. The NHLPA is obviously fighting for them, and they may land some kind of settlement, but that’s about the best they can hope for IMO.
Do I think these players should have the opportunity to return to the NHL? Yes. Will I be pissed if the Leafs inquire about any of them? Also yes. Will I ridicule Oiler fans relentlessly if they stoop to the level of signing any one of these guys. Absolutely, yes.
This is just retarded. Pissed just at the idea of them inquiring? Just asking questions?
The Leafs would be a better team with McLeod at league minimum than with Kampf. Same goes with Formenton at league minimum over Jarnkrok. Foote is better than having no RHD at all on the 3rd pair and he’s better than Myers too. Dube is a small skill guy but he’d fit in the top-6. He’s got a better history of scoring than Maccelli does, that’s for damn sure.
If the Leafs have the opportunity to improve the team by signing these guys for cheap contracts, they’d be stupid not too and so would anybody being pissy about the team improving over a bunch of bullshit they were NOT GUILTY for.
If these 5 players had names like Bedard, Matthews etc. in them do the players get suspended right away? Is the outcry to ban them from the league the same?
I personally don’t think so.
I’ll have to disagree with you on this. Legit, if ANY player in the NHL had charges brought against them, they would be immediately suspended. There probably is a “out” clause in every pro sports contract for cases like this. Players in the NBA and NFL get suspended all the time for legal issues.
I also don’t think the players would be successful in suing the league for lost wages. The NHLPA is obviously fighting for them, and they may land some kind of settlement, but that’s about the best they can hope for IMO.
Do I think these players should have the opportunity to return to the NHL? Yes. Will I be pissed if the Leafs inquire about any of them? Also yes. Will I ridicule Oiler fans relentlessly if they stoop to the level of signing any one of these guys. Absolutely, yes.
I’m not sure that she was the sexual aggressor when this players came up to the room with the express purpose of having sex with her – Cupsie
From the Athletic article:
“Throughout the trial, attorneys for the accused argued that E.M. was the instigator of the group sex, urging McLeod to invite his teammates back to the hotel room for a “wild night.” In her decision, Carroccia highlighted that multiple witnesses testified that E.M. was the aggressor in the room and called players “pussies” for not having sex with her.”
I’m kinda rambling here, but I think that an underlying theme to this whole trial is that many are uncomfortable with the idea that a young woman could be the sexual aggressor. There’s a disbelief that she could have wanted to have sex with multiple partners in a hotel room.It’s an incredible double standard – would anyone blink if they heard of a 20 year old male who was happy to have sex with multiple female partners – all successful, incredibly fit athletes? – Atomic Wedgie
She agreed to go back to have sex with McLeod. He texted the rest of the group to come up and join in. Most decided to stay away, some decided to come to the room and four of those decided to have sex with her. I don’t think there was any evidence that he invited them up at her request.
The players maintained that she was enthusiastic. The Crown argued that she was drunk and fearful and that any consent was invalid. The judge concluded that the Criwn didn’t meet its burden of proof and they were acquitted.
I’m not sure that she was the sexual aggressor when this players came up to the room with the express purpose of having sex with her. – CC [/quote]
I am guessing that when talking about her being the aggressor he was referring to the testimony of a witness (player that was not charged) that was called by the prosecution who allegedly said something to the effect of (was reported as this being the testimony):
“She went onto the floor and started masturbating and asked guys to come have sex with her,” Steenbergen says. “She said, ‘Can one of you guys come over and f–k me?’”
I’m kinda rambling here, but I think that an underlying theme to this whole trial is that many are uncomfortable with the idea that a young woman could be the sexual aggressor. There’s a disbelief that she could have wanted to have sex with multiple partners in a hotel room.
It’s an incredible double standard – would anyone blink if they heard of a 20 year old male who was happy to have sex with multiple female partners – all successful, incredibly fit athletes?[/quote]
Ya thats not it at all.
Its fucking 2025….so many women have onlyfans accounts or post provocative pics on social media.It mainly stems from a drunk inviting ONE guy to her room and that one guy texting friends to come up and then her being or feeling pressured to continue.
If she wanted a gang bang, then this most likely isnt a story.
Was it immoral? To some no, but to many yes.
Was it disgusting? To some no, but to many yes.
I’m kinda rambling here, but I think that an underlying theme to this whole trial is that many are uncomfortable with the idea that a young woman could be the sexual aggressor. There’s a disbelief that she could have wanted to have sex with multiple partners in a hotel room.
It’s an incredible double standard – would anyone blink if they heard of a 20 year old male who was happy to have sex with multiple female partners – all successful, incredibly fit athletes?
She agreed to go back to have sex with McLeod. He texted the rest of the group to come up and join in. Most decided to stay away, some decided to come to the room and four of those decided to have sex with her. I don’t think there was any evidence that he invited them up at her request.
The players maintained that she was enthusiastic. The Crown argued that she was drunk and fearful and that any consent was invalid. The judge concluded that the Crown didn’t meet its burden of proof and they were acquitted.
I’m not sure that she was the sexual aggressor when the players came up to the room with the express purpose of having sex with her.
ose players would have to be suspended no matter who they are. It’s the current standard. I’m guessing the bigger names who magically get that to happen like you’re saying though. I’ve heard the NHLPA have recently started pushing to have the overall suspension dropped though. I kind of wonder that myself, being charged isn’t being found guilty, still, could be a media frenzy though.
I agree it’s the standard – what I don’t know is if it is appropriate (assuming it’s an unpaid suspension) or legal from a contractual perspective. It’s pretty common practice in many organizations / companies etc. that an investigative suspension is a paid one.
Now this has a criminality element to it as the players were charged with a criminal offense so perhaps that makes it different and there is language in the CBA or a contract etc. that says the league/team can suspend them (with or without pay) if a criminal charge is laid against the ’employee’ (player).
It’s the difference between being charged of a criminal offence vs convicted of one that is the crux the the debate in some ways.
Think about say a police officer, if they are charged with an offense they are either moved to an administrative role and continue to work or suspended with pay pending the end result of the court case and/or the determination / ruling from the Police Services board. (Yes police officers being suspended with pay is something that is in itself a hot topic quite often but the concept behind it is sound in that it’s to protect those who are wrongfully accused from losing pay due to false complaints made with malice intent etc.).
To that end the NHLPA would be underserving their players by not fighting against any ability to have one of their ‘members’ suspended without pay for being charged with an offence.
One suggested way to try and remedy the issue with police who are allowed to keep being paid after being charged with an offence and until the court cases are heard (sometimes for years) I have read about was to make the individual pay back any and all money they received if they are convicted. If I was arguing for some language to be fair to both the NHLPA and the League/teams that might be the suggestion I make. I mean if a player was charged with an offence and they thought there was a possibility that they may be convicted they would then simply know that they should put aside money they are being paid while going through the court process so they have it to pay back if convicted.
Ok I agree with Azure on this topic, despite it also being the opinion of someone here I have zero respect for and has zero ability to present his opinion in any way other than the most offense way riddled full of insults etc.
The court case has happened, the judge ruled and it’s done. If the NHL decides to try and prevent these players from playing by claiming they breached a morality clause I think they face an issue with the players perhaps coming at the league (if it was a league decision, the teams if it was an individual team decision) for lost wages for the time they were suspended as a start. They will layer in some defamation element and perhaps even some loss of future earning potential all of which would equate to big dollars.
I think the league will simply (quietly and not publicly) tell the players/teams in the league that these guys can be signed / play and it’s up to teams to decide if they want to do so – pushing all of the potential risk of poor public reaction etc. onto teams and avoiding any litigation.
I agree with what you said Dozzer but there is that one sticky point that I’ve read from a few people in difference places and that you have to factor in – who the players were in terms of how big a superstar they are or were. The NHL has proven over and over again big time stars get different treatment and let’s not pretend the media don’t do the same.
If these 5 players had names like Bedard, Matthews etc. in them do the players get suspended right away? Is the outcry to ban them from the league the same?
I personally don’t think so.
If you strip emotion, bias and personal morality out of the equation and simply ask if the players should technically, legally be allowed to resume their careers I think the fairly obvious answer is yes.
The league can say the players broke the morality clause and as I said I think they have to fight that in court but who knows until / unless it happens.
I question if the league/players had the legal right to even suspend but without seeing what the contracts say or the CBA (and I don’t care enough to go research it or even see if it’s public) and the fact the players just took the suspension maybe they have language in there that allows it. IF the suspension is unpaid I would be surprised the NHLPA agreed to it.
What has not been mentioned but I think may pop up soon is the fact that the finding of not guilty does not prevent any civil action that the alleged victim may decide to peruse. Now if she took some settlement from Hockey Canada she may not be able to sue the players or HC but again maybe that settlement only protected HC and she could try to sue individual players – I guess we will see.
The case and charges were criminal, not civil proceedings and they differ greatly in many ways including the need to prove “beyond a reasonably doubt” that something did or did not occur.
Well technically like it or not unless the charge is “dropped” or put “on hold” til the day before court those players would have to be suspended no matter who they are. It’s the current standard. I’m guessing the bigger names who magically get that to happen like you’re saying though. I’ve heard the NHLPA have recently started pushing to have the overall suspension dropped though. I kind of wonder that myself, being charged isn’t being found guilty, still, could be a media frenzy though.
I’m kinda rambling here, but I think that an underlying theme to this whole trial is that many are uncomfortable with the idea that a young woman could be the sexual aggressor. There’s a disbelief that she could have wanted to have sex with multiple partners in a hotel room.
It’s an incredible double standard – would anyone blink if they heard of a 20 year old male who was happy to have sex with multiple female partners – all successful, incredibly fit athletes?
That’s precisely why I’m using the word orgy. It’s been around for a long long time. It’s not illegal, and you risk being socially judged, however the modern day has a pretty notable difference…
The internet. So the knowledge of your orgy’s existence has the potential of being spread around far more quickly and openly.
Also, anyone who thinks there weren’t orgy’s that existed that involved multiple men and very few women (if any) prior to this is also in denial.
