NHL suspends players acquitted in 2018 sexual assault trial until Dec. 1

[STL fan in MN]

Here’s what the NHL released on the matter a few days ago:

NEW YORK -- The National Hockey League today issued the following regarding the status of Dillon Dube, Cal Foote, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, and Michael McLeod, who were each members of Hockey Canada’s 2018 National U-20 Junior Team:

The events that transpired after the 2018 Hockey Canada Foundation Gala in London, Ontario, prior to these players’ arrival in the NHL, were deeply troubling and unacceptable. The League expects everyone connected with the game to conduct themselves with the highest level of moral integrity. And, in this case, while found not to have been criminal, the conduct of the players involved certainly did not meet that standard.

Upon learning of the allegations in May 2022, the League commenced a third-party investigation into their conduct. This investigation was extensive, and included, among other things: interviews with every player on the team and several other relevant parties who were willing to meet with us, and examination of hundreds of documents, videos and texts.

The League paused our process in January 2024, when prosecutors in London, Ontario, announced that Mr. Dube, Mr. Foote, Mr. Formenton, Mr. Hart, and Mr. McLeod would be criminally charged.

After more than one year of pretrial proceedings, the criminal trial commenced in April 2025, and lasted approximately two months, concluding on June 13, 2025. The verdicts finding each of the players not guilty were announced in a lengthy and thorough opinion by Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia on July 24, 2025. In her decision, Justice Carroccia carefully reviewed the record presented to the court.

In relying on both our own investigation, and the conclusions reached by Justice Carroccia in her opinion, and the players’ acquittal, the League has determined that the conduct at issue falls woefully short of the standards and values that the League and its Member Clubs expect and demand.

The League is now confronted with how best to respond to all that has happened -- the conduct of the players, the criminal proceeding, and the acquittal of the players.

Each of the players, based on in-person meetings with the League following the verdicts, expressed regret and remorse for his actions. Nevertheless, we believe their conduct requires formal League-imposed discipline.

Given their conduct, we carefully evaluated the players’ acquittal in court and the time spent away from the game. Taking into account that the players have been away from the game for 20 months -- including since their acquittals in July -- we have determined that the players will be eligible to sign an NHL contract no sooner than October 15, 2025, and eligible to play in NHL games no sooner than December 1, 2025, bringing their total time out of the League to nearly two years.

The League expects and requires that, going forward, each of the players will uphold the standards required of NHL players both on and off the ice.

So while the 5 of them were found not guilty of a crime, the NHL probably knows exactly what happened in that room that night and found the conduct “deeply troubling and unacceptable” and “woefully short” of what’s expected of NHLers. Considering the players aren’t balking at this at all, read into that what you may…

[roessjd]

I read this morning that they will be able to play in the AHL for conditioning starting 15 November.

[theograce]

So while the 5 of them were found not guilty of a crime, the NHL probably knows exactly what happened in that room that night and found the conduct “deeply troubling and unacceptable” and “woefully short” of what’s expected of NHLers. Considering the players aren’t balking at this at all, read into that what you may…

You think they don’t know what happened with ROR?

[BalotelliMassive]

When will this league stop making terrible decisions?

This is a joke!

Asking honestly, what is it that has you upset about this decision? Is it that they’re being allowed back at all? I’m genuinely asking.

These people are innocent - why is there a time period for them to be reinstated?

Define "innocent" in this case. It was clearly an ugly incident the NHL seems that additional discipline is required I'm ok with that

They were charged with a crime - they were not found guilty of committing said crime.

Anything else you need me to clear up?

The judge failed to find guilt. Thats not the same thing as the judge found them not guilty. Our system of law doesnt find anyone not guilty. That distinction matters.

As for morality clauses, they often include cooperating with investigations. These guys almost certainly colluded to obstruct the investigation - maybe not enough to prove a criminal conspiracy, but likely enough to trigger a morals clause.

The NHL shouldn't be disciplining these guys in this case (and, certainly, what's 4 months going to do?), but that doesn't mean these guys are fine, upstanding young men.

Are you speaking for the Canadian court system?

I'll admit that I'm clueless as to how they operate.

[SRV1990]

Is this thread about the five players who were accused of sexual assault in 2018, or is it about someone/something else?

[moose-and-squirrel]

Is this thread about the five players who were accused of sexual assault in 2018, or is it about someone/something else?

depends... if you're trolling it's about what fits your agenda

[skilles]

All sounds like PR nonsense to me. Truly crazy what has gone on to appease people in this whole case.

[Old_Goat]

Is this thread about the five players who were accused of sexual assault in 2018, or is it about someone/something else?

depends... if you're trolling it's about what fits your agenda

No kidding. The Forum's chronic jock-sniffer should be able to fabricate a rumor about one of the individuals involved in this incident.

[SRV1990]

Is this thread about the five players who were accused of sexual assault in 2018, or is it about someone/something else?

depends... if you're trolling it's about what fits your agenda

Makes sense. There is a known correlation between those with a low IQ and a diminished attention span. Gotta feel sorry for folks who have an intellectual disability on top of attention issues.

[Harry S Deals]

When will this league stop making terrible decisions?

This is a joke!

Asking honestly, what is it that has you upset about this decision? Is it that they’re being allowed back at all? I’m genuinely asking.

These people are innocent - why is there a time period for them to be reinstated?

Define "innocent" in this case. It was clearly an ugly incident the NHL seems that additional discipline is required I'm ok with that

They were charged with a crime - they were not found guilty of committing said crime.

Anything else you need me to clear up?

https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/458 ... of-not-met

Yes, learn to read the judge ACQUITTED them citing the prosecutor did not meet the onus of proof. Legally this is not the same outcome as INNOCENT. Clear enough?

[Harry S Deals]

When will this league stop making terrible decisions?

This is a joke!

Asking honestly, what is it that has you upset about this decision? Is it that they’re being allowed back at all? I’m genuinely asking.

These people are innocent - why is there a time period for them to be reinstated?

Define "innocent" in this case. It was clearly an ugly incident the NHL seems that additional discipline is required I'm ok with that

They were charged with a crime - they were not found guilty of committing said crime.

Anything else you need me to clear up?

The judge failed to find guilt. Thats not the same thing as the judge found them not guilty. Our system of law doesnt find anyone not guilty. That distinction matters.

As for morality clauses, they often include cooperating with investigations. These guys almost certainly colluded to obstruct the investigation - maybe not enough to prove a criminal conspiracy, but likely enough to trigger a morals clause.

The NHL shouldn't be disciplining these guys in this case (and, certainly, what's 4 months going to do?), but that doesn't mean these guys are fine, upstanding young men.

Are you speaking for the Canadian court system?

I'll admit that I'm clueless as to how they operate.

This applies generally to England, Canada, US

[BalotelliMassive]

https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/458 ... of-not-met

Yes, learn to read the judge ACQUITTED them citing the prosecutor did not meet the onus of proof. Legally this is not the same outcome as INNOCENT. Clear enough?

You're just posting your opinion.

Charterpedia - Section 11 (d) – Presumption of innocence
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right: 1. to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/r ... rt11d.html

Section 11(d) helps to ensure that only those who are guilty are ultimately condemned by the criminal justice system. Section 11(d) protects the innocent in two ways. First, section 11(d) guarantees the right of any person charged with an offence to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, section 11(d) guarantees that the process whereby the guilt of any accused will be proved, will be fair. An essential component of a fair process is that the trier of fact — whether judge or jury — be independent and impartial (Dubois v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 350 at page 357; R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103 at paragraph 32). Section 11(d) does not guarantee “the most favourable procedures imaginable” for the accused, nor is the broad principle of trial fairness assessed solely from the accused’s perspective (J.J., supra at paragraph 125). The right to a fair trial is considered from the perspectives of the accused, the complainant, the community and the criminal justice system at large (J.J., supra at paragraph 121).



Oops

[Harry S Deals]

https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/458 ... of-not-met

Yes, learn to read the judge ACQUITTED them citing the prosecutor did not meet the onus of proof. Legally this is not the same outcome as INNOCENT. Clear enough?

You're just posting your opinion.

Charterpedia - Section 11 (d) – Presumption of innocence
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right: 1. to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/r ... rt11d.html

Section 11(d) helps to ensure that only those who are guilty are ultimately condemned by the criminal justice system. Section 11(d) protects the innocent in two ways. First, section 11(d) guarantees the right of any person charged with an offence to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, section 11(d) guarantees that the process whereby the guilt of any accused will be proved, will be fair. An essential component of a fair process is that the trier of fact — whether judge or jury — be independent and impartial (Dubois v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 350 at page 357; R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103 at paragraph 32). Section 11(d) does not guarantee “the most favourable procedures imaginable” for the accused, nor is the broad principle of trial fairness assessed solely from the accused’s perspective (J.J., supra at paragraph 125). The right to a fair trial is considered from the perspectives of the accused, the complainant, the community and the criminal justice system at large (J.J., supra at paragraph 121).



Oops

Nope your wrong in the US and generally Canada a judge can acquit you in a criminal proceeding for many reasons OR you can be found NOT GUILTY (not legally answerable for a crime) these are not the same things. Neither can you mean you are actually INNOCENT, you are conflating these terms legally.
I could shoot my wife, have overwhelming evidence against me and be acquitted on a technicality or the judge could find the county prosecutor failed to meet the case that is not to say i was INNOCENT.

[sdaltons]

Time to do a wellness check on Harry's wife

[Harry S Deals]

Time to do a wellness check on Harry's wife

Lol! Ok that was just an example!


Was OJ INNOCENT? He most likely chopped off Nicoles head with a sword but... was ACQUITTED, see how that works

[BalotelliMassive]

Nope your wrong

I posted Canadian Law. You're posting an opinion.