- This topic has 1,577 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 9 months, 1 week ago by
.
- The topic ‘Leaf Talk – 2025-26 Season’ is closed to new replies.
-
Posts
-
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.
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?
Yup.
Probably the same type of people that whined about hilary’s emails for years.Nah, not the same as political arguments, you have to accept that you’ll always be at war if you want a career in politics and that’s the end of that.
This is pretty simple though, when it comes to the orgy it really leads to three things.
Was it illegal? No.
Was it immoral? To some no, but to many yes.
Was it disgusting? To some no, but to many yes.
And no matter what, the people who think it was immoral and disgusting behaviour are never ever going away, it’s called society, and no, not everyone forgives alongside law.
When it comes to Matthews was it rude? Sure. Did it involve his sexual organ and sleeping with someone? No. Therefore not nearly as many people were insulted by it, not even close.
Ffs anyone who thinks that someone showing off their underwear is on par with a drunken orgy is a flat out lunatic.
Yup.
Probably the same type of people that whined about hilary’s emails for years.Ffs anyone who thinks that someone showing off their underwear is on par with a drunken orgy is a flat out lunatic.
So, being the hypocrite that you are, when Matthews pulls his pants down in public like a drunken idiot, you don’t care because you beLeaf he will help the Leafs win games.
Dude, come on.
Yes, Matthews was drunk.
Two of his buddies thought it would be funny to sit in the back seat of the security guard’s car.
Then when she over-reacted, Matthews dropped his pants – BUT NOT HIS UNDEREWEAR – to mimic mooning her.
She subsequently looked for $$$$ by threatening to sue – claiming she had PTSD from her military service.
Sorry, but if you can’t handle that incident, you can’t handle being a security guard.
No arrests, police washed their hands of the entire thing.
JFC, are you really bringing this up again? It was a huge nothing burger, followed by a cash grab.
Sounds familiar.
Doesn’t matter if YOU forgive them.
This is kinda my point.. There is nothing to forgive.. The error here was made by
1) The initial police investigation(Which was half assed)
2) Hockey Canada
3) The crown prosecutor that decided to try the case based of a civil settlement that the players didnt even know about.The judge did everything but come out and call her a liar.
These guys had their names dragged through the mud and likely have permanent harm to their reputation when they did nothing wrong but party with the wrong.
The NHL is now saying they are ineligible to play because they has consensual sex with a woman. Guess they will need to shut the league down and suspend 99% of the players. My assumption at this point is consensual sex with a man puts you in a marginalized group and that then makes it ok.
I cannot believe I am on the same side of this argument as UG. I feel dirty.
I 100% agree with everything you said, even the bolded. I wll go take a shower now. I feel dirty…. lol
So, being the hypocrite that you are, when Matthews pulls his pants down in public like a drunken idiot, you don’t care because you beLeaf he will help the Leafs win games.
Dude, come on.
Yes, Matthews was drunk.
Two of his buddies thought it would be funny to sit in the back seat of the security guard’s car.
Then when she over-reacted, Matthews dropped his pants – BUT NOT HIS UNDEREWEAR – to mimic mooning her.
She subsequently looked for $$$$ by threatening to sue – claiming she had PTSD from her military service.
Sorry, but if you can’t handle that incident, you can’t handle being a security guard.
No arrests, police washed their hands of the entire thing.
JFC, are you really bringing this up again? It was a huge nothing burger, followed by a cash grab.
Not sure about the rest of you, but when I was 18, I’d have thought it was pretty gay to have a 6 way dudefest with some drunk chick in a hotel..
Sure, if you’re a piece of shit.
What they did was still very suspect.
A judge says otherwise..
Everything about this case wreaks of failure. Two juries were dismissed, judge seemed to bias against the girl, many things were ruled inadmissible.
I agree with this and it never should have gone to trail.. The crown prosecutor wasted everyone’s time and money
“I do not find the evidence of E.M. credible or reliable,” Carrocia told the court. “Considering the evidence in this trial as a whole, I conclude that the Crown cannot meet its onus on any of the counts.”
None of these guys will be signed by the leafs. I know ug loves his rapist and molesters, but sorry bud these sacks of crap arent going to be leafs. So save us the pages of your stupidity.
Don’t care if they are signed by the Leafs… Calling them rapists is a joke since they were not even charged with that but were acquitted. You clearly seem to think that everything the girl said is true and everything the guys did was illegal even though the legal system stated the opposite.
Maybe you should be come a judge so you can just accept the facts that you deem relevant to the outcome that you are predisposed to.
If they were actually guilty of rape(or if anyone else is) They should have been locked up and never been released. But in the same vein it has been proven over and over through the “Me Too” movement that Men are not automatically guilty because of a women claim.
As in was in this case the testimony and evidence was weak and the witness unreliable.
Sorry but you’re confused on a few points. No the judge never contradicted the assertion that the conduct of the players was “stinky”. It was alleged that the 5 players had sex with one victim in a hotel room with other players present. The defence never questioned this and the judge never addressed it. In fact she said that it was not her job to comment on the morality of the behaviour of the players but to determine whether the Crown had proven its case.
The case rested on the question of consent. The Crown argued that EM was too drunk and fearful and that any consent she gave was not valid. The judge didn’t buy that argument and they were acquitted.
People are free to decide that 5 guys having sex with one girl is kind of stinky and others can be ok with it. The evidence and the judgement from the judge don’t affect that one way or another.
You’re also wrong to make a point about them not being charged with rape. There is no offence in the Canadian Criminal Code called rape. The term is sexual assault. They were charged with the equivalent of rape.
