- This topic has 1,575 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 24 minutes ago by
.
-
Posts
-
99% huh? McLeod texted all the players in London asking if they wanted to come up to his room to join a 3-way. Most stayed away. A few came up but didn’t participate. 5 did. I think your math is a bit off.
Now you’re being willfully obtuse which is a common tactic among the usual suspects around here. He obviously didn’t literally mean 99%.
There are two sets of decisions, one in court and one by the league and teams.
The judge’s decision came down to her conclusion that EM was not drunk enough or afraid enough to invalidate her consent. The actions of the players was not in question.
The league and teams will decide simply on the basis of their behaviour. Do they believe that behaviour reflects the “highest standards of morality, honesty, fair play and sportsmanship and is not detrimental to the best interests of the team, league and professional hockey” as required in player contracts. I don’t think it’s obvious that Gary says yes. The fact that they’re fairly marginal players shouldn’t matter but probably will. The PA will appeal and who knows how long it might get drawn out. If they are allowed to play will any team sign them?
The NHL has already fucked these guys over by assuming their guilt and pulling them from the NHL while the case was pending. They already trampled over the presumption of innocence. Now they’re going to shit on them again even after they’re found not guilty. You want to talk about “high standards of morality”? That’s a load of shit for morality.
Define “highest standards of morality”. Good fucking luck. That’s a completely vague, subjective standard the NHL can use to fit whatever bullshit box they need it to fit in. It’s slimly, legalese terminology designed just to basically do whatever they want without having an actual definition.
The actions by these players happened SEVEN YEARS ago when they were in their late teens. They aren’t the same people anymore. They haven’t done anything “immoral” since even though that’s a stupid standard to have because morality is vague and different for everyone. There are people who think having children out of wedlock or divorce is immoral. We going to ban all those players? I think it’s immoral to brandish the flag of a group of people who advocate for the sexual mutilation of children and mascaraed it as “gender affirming health care”. Ban them too?
If they were found guilty, there might be an argument for a brief suspension but they were found not guilty. They have been out of the league for a long time. Consider that time served and let them resume their careers. Let the social justice warriors bitch and moan in the dog days of summer and after a week it’ll be forgotten in place of the next woke moral crisis.
Everything about your argument wreaks of stupidity, bias and adherence to the cult mentality. People like you are why the justice system exists, to protect people from idiots like you.
You wanted them to be guilty, you were wrong so now you’re going to pretend they’re guilty anyway, regardless of the facts and the outcome.
None of these players will help the leafs win…so who cares.
Leafs arent signing them…end of story.
Find something else to whine about.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. But if the players aren’t good enough, ban them for life.[/quote]
As per usual you are wrong and moronic.
I didnt care what the outcome was, the trial was turning into a circus…so i personally didnt want any particular outcome.
But it figures you are comparing mooning someone to what took place with those 5 guys and 1 girl.
Such a simpleton.The leafs arent signing these 4th liners…..stop whining at the clouds.
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.
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.
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..
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 $$$$ by threatening to sue – claiming she had PTSD from her military service.
Sorry, but if you can’t handle that incident, you can’t handle being a security guard.
No arrests, police washed their hands of the entire thing.
JFC, are you really bringing this up again? It was a huge nothing burger, followed by a cash grab.
Doesn’t matter if YOU forgive them.
This is kinda my point.. There is nothing to forgive.. The error here was made by
1) The initial police investigation(Which was half assed)
2) Hockey Canada
3) The crown prosecutor that decided to try the case based of a civil settlement that the players didnt even know about.The judge did everything but come out and call her a liar.
These guys had their names dragged through the mud and likely have permanent harm to their reputation when they did nothing wrong but party with the wrong.
The NHL is now saying they are ineligible to play because they has consensual sex with a woman. Guess they will need to shut the league down and suspend 99% of the players. My assumption at this point is consensual sex with a man puts you in a marginalized group and that then makes it ok.
I cannot believe I am on the same side of this argument as UG. I feel dirty.
I 100% agree with everything you said, even the bolded. I wll go take a shower now. I feel dirty…. lol
So, being the hypocrite that you are, when Matthews pulls his pants down in public like a drunken idiot, you don’t care because you beLeaf he will help the Leafs win games.
Dude, come on.
Yes, Matthews was drunk.
Two of his buddies thought it would be funny to sit in the back seat of the security guard’s car.
Then when she over-reacted, Matthews dropped his pants – BUT NOT HIS UNDEREWEAR – to mimic mooning her.
She subsequently looked for $$$$ 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.
Sounds familiar.
Ffs anyone who thinks that someone showing off their underwear is on par with a drunken orgy is a flat out lunatic.
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.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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.