Sexual assault case against 2018 Canada world junior players nears a verdict

[bluetunehead]

The NHL has already commented that these players remain ineligible pending their continuing investigation (can a morals clause apply retroactively?) and the PA has already criticized this position as inconsistent with the disciplinary section of the CBA.

My guess is that any reinstatement will have to wait until the appeals process runs (its quite likely the crown appeals, given the political pressure).

Personally, I think the NHL should have every right to determine if the evidence shows conduct that is prohibited by its relatively strict morals clause, assuming that clause can even be applied retroactively to the events in question (ie if they lied about the event when signing, for example).

At a minimum, it served everyone's best interests to let the legal process reach a conclusion first, which should inform the League's findings.

The NHL has pretty wide latitude to suspend these guys for inappropriate conduct regardless of when it occurred. Being a professional hockey player isn't a right.

[DawgDad]

The NHL has already commented that these players remain ineligible pending their continuing investigation (can a morals clause apply retroactively?) and the PA has already criticized this position as inconsistent with the disciplinary section of the CBA.

My guess is that any reinstatement will have to wait until the appeals process runs (its quite likely the crown appeals, given the political pressure).

Personally, I think the NHL should have every right to determine if the evidence shows conduct that is prohibited by its relatively strict morals clause, assuming that clause can even be applied retroactively to the events in question (ie if they lied about the event when signing, for example).

At a minimum, it served everyone's best interests to let the legal process reach a conclusion first, which should inform the League's findings.

I'm not the deep expert here but I would say the not guilty verdicts coupled with the Judge's statement that she did not find the claimant's testimony to be credible will make it very difficult for the NHL to continue locking these guys out. They have already paid a steep price for conduct that was not found to be criminal. The NHL cannot publicly cast this as non-consensual or rape without opening themselves up to defamation claims.

This is a different issue than the way Team Canada et al handled the case internally and the systemic issues uncovered. Cleanup was certainly in order.

These guys (and the girl) did some very stupid things. It has not been demonstrated to have been criminal. They have all paid a price, publicly. At some point this all needs to stop, everyone needs to move on.

[STL fan in MN]

The NHL has already commented that these players remain ineligible pending their continuing investigation (can a morals clause apply retroactively?) and the PA has already criticized this position as inconsistent with the disciplinary section of the CBA.

My guess is that any reinstatement will have to wait until the appeals process runs (its quite likely the crown appeals, given the political pressure).

Personally, I think the NHL should have every right to determine if the evidence shows conduct that is prohibited by its relatively strict morals clause, assuming that clause can even be applied retroactively to the events in question (ie if they lied about the event when signing, for example).

At a minimum, it served everyone's best interests to let the legal process reach a conclusion first, which should inform the League's findings.

I'm not the deep expert here but I would say the not guilty verdicts coupled with the Judge's statement that she did not find the claimant's testimony to be credible will make it very difficult for the NHL to continue locking these guys out. They have already paid a steep price for conduct that was not found to be criminal. The NHL cannot publicly cast this as non-consensual or rape without opening themselves up to defamation claims.

This is a different issue than the way Team Canada et al handled the case internally and the systemic issues uncovered. Cleanup was certainly in order.

These guys (and the girl) did some very stupid things. It has not been demonstrated to have been criminal. They have all paid a price, publicly. At some point this all needs to stop, everyone needs to move on.

The NHL said they did their own investigation but declined to release the findings prior to the conclusion of the trial. I wonder if that will now come out. My guess is it still won’t and it’ll be handled in private. But maybe we’ll have a sense of what the NHL determined based on if they readmit these guys or not.

[Army's Mom]

The NHL has already commented that these players remain ineligible pending their continuing investigation (can a morals clause apply retroactively?) and the PA has already criticized this position as inconsistent with the disciplinary section of the CBA.

My guess is that any reinstatement will have to wait until the appeals process runs (its quite likely the crown appeals, given the political pressure).

Personally, I think the NHL should have every right to determine if the evidence shows conduct that is prohibited by its relatively strict morals clause, assuming that clause can even be applied retroactively to the events in question (ie if they lied about the event when signing, for example).

At a minimum, it served everyone's best interests to let the legal process reach a conclusion first, which should inform the League's findings.

I'm not the deep expert here but I would say the not guilty verdicts coupled with the Judge's statement that she did not find the claimant's testimony to be credible will make it very difficult for the NHL to continue locking these guys out. They have already paid a steep price for conduct that was not found to be criminal. The NHL cannot publicly cast this as non-consensual or rape without opening themselves up to defamation claims.

Actually, the two are completely different, with different levels of proof required. Whether the conduct violated the NHL's morals clause has nothing to do with whether or not it was demonstrably criminal. The judge's findings have no bearing on whether the players in question violated a morals clause - especially if an arbiter determines that players lied to the League or team officials about the night in question during the subsequent investigation(s).

The case isn't even over yet (the crown 30 days to decide whether or not to appeal and is likely weighing the political ramifications - unfortunately).

[DawgDad]

The NHL has already commented that these players remain ineligible pending their continuing investigation (can a morals clause apply retroactively?) and the PA has already criticized this position as inconsistent with the disciplinary section of the CBA.

My guess is that any reinstatement will have to wait until the appeals process runs (its quite likely the crown appeals, given the political pressure).

Personally, I think the NHL should have every right to determine if the evidence shows conduct that is prohibited by its relatively strict morals clause, assuming that clause can even be applied retroactively to the events in question (ie if they lied about the event when signing, for example).

At a minimum, it served everyone's best interests to let the legal process reach a conclusion first, which should inform the League's findings.

I'm not the deep expert here but I would say the not guilty verdicts coupled with the Judge's statement that she did not find the claimant's testimony to be credible will make it very difficult for the NHL to continue locking these guys out. They have already paid a steep price for conduct that was not found to be criminal. The NHL cannot publicly cast this as non-consensual or rape without opening themselves up to defamation claims.

Actually, the two are completely different, with different levels of proof required. Whether the conduct violated the NHL's morals clause has nothing to do with whether or not it was demonstrably criminal. The judge's findings have no bearing on whether the players in question violated a morals clause - especially if an arbiter determines that players lied to the League or team officials about the night in question during the subsequent investigation(s).

The case isn't even over yet (the crown 30 days to decide whether or not to appeal and is likely weighing the political ramifications - unfortunately).

You have a point but there are a couple of other factors, the big one being the Player's Association. The players have effectively been suspended for some time now. Also, the NHL is an International league. Hart for one played in the US, he may have access to US Courts. Not sure about any binding arbitration.

It will add a twist if the Crown appeals.

[STL fan in MN]

Statement from NHL:

The National Hockey League released a statement regarding the Hockey Canada trial verdict:

"The allegations made in this case, even if not determined to have been criminal, were very disturbing and the behavior at issue was unacceptable. We will be reviewing and considering the judge's findings. While we conduct that analysis and determine next steps, the players charged in this case are ineligible to play in the League."

Statement from NHLPA in response:

"Dillon Dube, Cal Foote, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, and Michael McLeod were acquitted of all charges by Justice Carroccia of the Ontario Superior Court," the NHLPA said. "After missing more than a full season of their respective NHL careers, they should now have the opportunity to return to work. The NHL’s declaration that the Players are 'ineligible' to play pending its further analysis of the Court's findings is inconsistent with the discipline procedures set forth in the CBA."

I guess we’ll see where this goes.

[bluetunehead]

Statement from NHL:

The National Hockey League released a statement regarding the Hockey Canada trial verdict:

"The allegations made in this case, even if not determined to have been criminal, were very disturbing and the behavior at issue was unacceptable. We will be reviewing and considering the judge's findings. While we conduct that analysis and determine next steps, the players charged in this case are ineligible to play in the League."

Statement from NHLPA in response:

"Dillon Dube, Cal Foote, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, and Michael McLeod were acquitted of all charges by Justice Carroccia of the Ontario Superior Court," the NHLPA said. "After missing more than a full season of their respective NHL careers, they should now have the opportunity to return to work. The NHL’s declaration that the Players are 'ineligible' to play pending its further analysis of the Court's findings is inconsistent with the discipline procedures set forth in the CBA."

I guess we’ll see where this goes.

Yeah if I had to guess, they end up considering these guys last year+ out of the league as sort of 'time served' when it comes to a suspension from hockey. But the league absolutely could keep them out if they desired. I just don't know if they're going to want to go through the headaches of fighting the NHLPA over it. The lack of conviction (presuming no retrial) is probably enough to get them back in.

[sdaltons]

Even if the league determines they are eligible, there's still the question of whether any team will want to take on the baggage.

[theograce]

Even if the league determines they are eligible, there's still the question of whether any team will want to take on the baggage.

Blues should be up for it.

ROR
Kapanen
…and a guy who killed a mother and did some time.

Jumbo jet full of baggage

[STL fan in MN]

Statement from NHL:

The National Hockey League released a statement regarding the Hockey Canada trial verdict:

"The allegations made in this case, even if not determined to have been criminal, were very disturbing and the behavior at issue was unacceptable. We will be reviewing and considering the judge's findings. While we conduct that analysis and determine next steps, the players charged in this case are ineligible to play in the League."

Statement from NHLPA in response:

"Dillon Dube, Cal Foote, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, and Michael McLeod were acquitted of all charges by Justice Carroccia of the Ontario Superior Court," the NHLPA said. "After missing more than a full season of their respective NHL careers, they should now have the opportunity to return to work. The NHL’s declaration that the Players are 'ineligible' to play pending its further analysis of the Court's findings is inconsistent with the discipline procedures set forth in the CBA."

I guess we’ll see where this goes.

Yeah if I had to guess, they end up considering these guys last year+ out of the league as sort of 'time served' when it comes to a suspension from hockey. But the league absolutely could keep them out if they desired. I just don't know if they're going to want to go through the headaches of fighting the NHLPA over it. The lack of conviction (presuming no retrial) is probably enough to get them back in.

We’ll see. Even if the league does allow them to be eligible, I could see most if not all teams deeming them not worth the risk to sign. Hart probably has the most favorable risk/benefit analysis given the need for goaltending. McLeod’s reputation is the most damaged IMO. Foote probably the least. All he did was the splits over the girl, no actual sexual relations. He says he was clothed and it was over her torso and she says he was naked and teabagged her in the face.

And as I write that sentence it becomes abundantly clear why the NHL might not want to touch these guys with a 10 foot pole and allow them back in the league.

[Big_G]

NHL says the 5 players acquitted of sexual assault are ineligible to join league, NHLPA pushes back

The NHL is barring five players acquitted of sexual assault from re-entering the league, announcing the decision in a statement on Friday. The five players — Michael McLeod, Dillon Dubé, Cal Foote, Alex Formenton and Carter Hart — were found not guilty of sexual assault charges on Thursday.

With the Hockey Canada trial complete, the NHL has determined that the five players involved in the trial will be ineligible to play in the League — bluntly answering post-trial questions about the players' hockey futures.

"The allegations made in this case, even if not determined to have been criminal, were very disturbing and the behavior at issue was unacceptable. We will be reviewing and considering the judge's findings," the league said in Friday's statement. "While we conduct that analysis and determine next steps, the players charged in this case are ineligible to play in the League."

The NHL Players' Association quickly pushed back on the decision, releasing its own statement defending the players and saying that they are "addressing this dispute with the League."

"Dillon Dube, Cal Foote, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, and Michael McLeod were acquitted of all charges by Justice Carroccia of the Ontario Superior Court," the NHLPA said. "After missing more than a full season of their respective NHL careers, they should now have the opportunity to return to work. The NHL’s declaration that the Players are 'ineligible' to play pending its further analysis of the Court's findings is inconsistent with the discipline procedures set forth in the CBA."

MORE

[bluetunehead]

Statement from NHL:

The National Hockey League released a statement regarding the Hockey Canada trial verdict:

"The allegations made in this case, even if not determined to have been criminal, were very disturbing and the behavior at issue was unacceptable. We will be reviewing and considering the judge's findings. While we conduct that analysis and determine next steps, the players charged in this case are ineligible to play in the League."

Statement from NHLPA in response:

"Dillon Dube, Cal Foote, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, and Michael McLeod were acquitted of all charges by Justice Carroccia of the Ontario Superior Court," the NHLPA said. "After missing more than a full season of their respective NHL careers, they should now have the opportunity to return to work. The NHL’s declaration that the Players are 'ineligible' to play pending its further analysis of the Court's findings is inconsistent with the discipline procedures set forth in the CBA."

I guess we’ll see where this goes.

Yeah if I had to guess, they end up considering these guys last year+ out of the league as sort of 'time served' when it comes to a suspension from hockey. But the league absolutely could keep them out if they desired. I just don't know if they're going to want to go through the headaches of fighting the NHLPA over it. The lack of conviction (presuming no retrial) is probably enough to get them back in.

We’ll see. Even if the league does allow them to be eligible, I could see most if not all teams deeming them not worth the risk to sign. Hart probably has the most favorable risk/benefit analysis given the need for goaltending. McLeod’s reputation is the most damaged IMO. Foote probably the least. All he did was the splits over the girl, no actual sexual relations. He says he was clothed and it was over her torso and she says he was naked and teabagged her in the face.

And as I write that sentence it becomes abundantly clear why the NHL might not want to touch these guys with a 10 foot pole and allow them back in the league.

Foote was barely an NHL caliber player before the incident came to light. He’s probably not getting any calls.

[Army's Mom]

The NHL has already commented that these players remain ineligible pending their continuing investigation (can a morals clause apply retroactively?) and the PA has already criticized this position as inconsistent with the disciplinary section of the CBA.

My guess is that any reinstatement will have to wait until the appeals process runs (its quite likely the crown appeals, given the political pressure).

Personally, I think the NHL should have every right to determine if the evidence shows conduct that is prohibited by its relatively strict morals clause, assuming that clause can even be applied retroactively to the events in question (ie if they lied about the event when signing, for example).

At a minimum, it served everyone's best interests to let the legal process reach a conclusion first, which should inform the League's findings.

I'm not the deep expert here but I would say the not guilty verdicts coupled with the Judge's statement that she did not find the claimant's testimony to be credible will make it very difficult for the NHL to continue locking these guys out. They have already paid a steep price for conduct that was not found to be criminal. The NHL cannot publicly cast this as non-consensual or rape without opening themselves up to defamation claims.

Actually, the two are completely different, with different levels of proof required. Whether the conduct violated the NHL's morals clause has nothing to do with whether or not it was demonstrably criminal. The judge's findings have no bearing on whether the players in question violated a morals clause - especially if an arbiter determines that players lied to the League or team officials about the night in question during the subsequent investigation(s).

The case isn't even over yet (the crown 30 days to decide whether or not to appeal and is likely weighing the political ramifications - unfortunately).

You have a point but there are a couple of other factors, the big one being the Player's Association. The players have effectively been suspended for some time now. Also, the NHL is an International league. Hart for one played in the US, he may have access to US Courts. Not sure about any binding arbitration.

It will add a twist if the Crown appeals.

Actually, the PA's reaction makes me more confident in my reading - if the NHL were to overstep, they could file for an injunction in US courts (US courts have jurisdiction, not Canadian). They haven't, which tells me theyre either willing to make examples of these guys, or more likely that theyre willing to let the NHL process run its course. Effectively, I think theyll wait for the Canadian appeals process to run its course, the see if the NHL delays reinstatement any further.

Binding arbitration would only mean that, if the PA (or the individual players) sues the League for reinstatement and there is a binding arbitration clause in the CBA (Im 99% sure there is), then itd be decided by an arbiter;

Judge Houston will spring forth from his grave to award Uncle Lou Colton Parayko, Rob Thomas, and any Blues drsft pick Smelly is praying for...