billybaseball wrote: ↑26 Jul 2025 07:53 am
If the NHL bans them then they will lose a very lucrative lawsuit. Absolutely no standing to ban these guys after the court case made it clear that it was not nearly as serious as first believed.
The judge simply ruled the alleged victim's testimony was not enough to rely on. Given the time and inebriation, thats not all that surprising.
It doesnt mean there's "no standing" for other disciplinary processes like the League's. Amd while we dont know exactly what the League process entails, the PA hasn't sued to stop it - thst tells me the NHL hasn't overstepped yet.
The court ruling also doesnt "make it clear it wasn't as serious as first believed". These cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute, and this case shows why. I would caution against drawing any conclusions from this trial, which still may be appealed.
Why? For starters, the witnesses credibility goes both ways. If she was too inebriated for her account to be credible, she likely was too inebriated to give meaningful consent...
The NHL is likely more concerned with the actions of these players from the time they signed contracts to present as pertains to this case.
Did they cooperate with the investigation? Did they conspire to hide facts or obstruct the investigation? Did they destroy evidence? Did they manipulate witnesses?
None of those questions were relevant to the criminal case, but are absolutely fair game for a broader morals clause inquiry.
Did you follow the trial? My statement has little to do about the judgment. The trial made it very clear that their was no case to be made against the players. It's not just a he said/she said. Even worst case of what the prosecution claimed would have cleared the players. They claimed her consent and eagerness was just a defense mechanism because the presence of the players alone was threatening. That is a ridiculous claim. She also was not intoxicated. She didn't drink after the bar and there is video evidence that clearly shows that she was not intoxicated to the point that she couldn't give consent when leaving the bar. The other players showed up 2-4 hours after she got to the hotel room. The videos in the hotel room shows her perfectly sober with no signs at all of any intoxication.
BTW. The girl never wanted charges filed in the first place. The players should sue the crown for bringing up ridiculous charges against them
Again, the NHL's interest here is not what happened on that night.
The NHL's interest is regarding how the players may have conspired to hide the truth after the fact.
None of thst was tested at the trial, which is why the trial is irrelevant to the matter of the NHL morals clause.
It doesn't sound right with the information we've all been allowed to see/know. Are all backgrounds going to be investigated? Starting for no reason at all with Bettman? For openers. Just sayin', start at the top. Just my opinion.
Blues Dave wrote: ↑26 Jul 2025 12:31 pm
It doesn't sound right with the information we've all been allowed to see/know. Are all backgrounds going to be investigated? Starting for no reason at all with Bettman? For openers. Just sayin', start at the top. Just my opinion.
That’s a good point and this stuff has been going on in hockey for a long time…way before it became a real option for a female to file a lawsuit. Players have to be more careful today but that still doesn’t negate certain aspects of that pro athlete lifestyle
Blues Dave wrote: ↑26 Jul 2025 12:31 pm
It doesn't sound right with the information we've all been allowed to see/know. Are all backgrounds going to be investigated? Starting for no reason at all with Bettman? For openers. Just sayin', start at the top. Just my opinion.
That’s a good point and this stuff has been going on in hockey for a long time…way before it became a real option for a female to file a lawsuit. Players have to be more careful today but that still doesn’t negate certain aspects of that pro athlete lifestyle
Did they investigate Craig MacTavish’s background? He killed a young mother. Took her young daughter’s mother away for life. Changed a family’s life forever. He was convicted.
Did they investigate ROR’s background. He paid the big bucks to get a non guilty, but clearly was guilty of several serious offenses.
Kappy committed serious a serious offense and just had to sorry and step on the ice. And he’s not even a big time player. Armstrong welcomed him with open arms.
Blues Dave wrote: ↑26 Jul 2025 12:31 pm
It doesn't sound right with the information we've all been allowed to see/know. Are all backgrounds going to be investigated? Starting for no reason at all with Bettman? For openers. Just sayin', start at the top. Just my opinion.
That’s a good point and this stuff has been going on in hockey for a long time…way before it became a real option for a female to file a lawsuit. Players have to be more careful today but that still doesn’t negate certain aspects of that pro athlete lifestyle
Did they investigate Craig MacTavish’s background? He killed a young mother. Took her young daughter’s mother away for life. Changed a family’s life forever. He was convicted.
Did they investigate ROR’s background. He paid the big bucks to get a non guilty, but clearly was guilty of several serious offenses.
Kappy committed serious a serious offense and just had to sorry and step on the ice. And he’s not even a big time player. Armstrong welcomed him with open arms.
It’s hilarious when you think about it…hey
MacTavish was convicted of vehicular homicide over 40 years ago. It’s conceivable that the NHL would handle it differently if the same situation occurred today.
As far as ROR and Kapanen, you have to understand that there’s a difference between drunk driving where no one was hurt and sexual assault, right?
I would imagine these guys are going to have to get counseling and complete some sort of a program and then ultimately be allowed to play again.
Blues Dave wrote: ↑26 Jul 2025 12:31 pm
It doesn't sound right with the information we've all been allowed to see/know. Are all backgrounds going to be investigated? Starting for no reason at all with Bettman? For openers. Just sayin', start at the top. Just my opinion.
That’s a good point and this stuff has been going on in hockey for a long time…way before it became a real option for a female to file a lawsuit. Players have to be more careful today but that still doesn’t negate certain aspects of that pro athlete lifestyle
Did they investigate Craig MacTavish’s background? He killed a young mother. Took her young daughter’s mother away for life. Changed a family’s life forever. He was convicted.
Did they investigate ROR’s background. He paid the big bucks to get a non guilty, but clearly was guilty of several serious offenses.
Kappy committed serious a serious offense and just had to sorry and step on the ice. And he’s not even a big time player. Armstrong welcomed him with open arms.
It’s hilarious when you think about it…hey
MacTavish was convicted of vehicular homicide over 40 years ago. It’s conceivable that the NHL would handle it differently if the same situation occurred today.
As far as ROR and Kapanen, you have to understand that there’s a difference between drunk driving where no one was hurt and sexual assault, right?
I would imagine these guys are going to have to get counseling and complete some sort of a program and then ultimately be allowed to play again.
Don’t bother arguing with this moron. It’s not about ROR or KK or MacT. It’s about the fact that they all wore the note. It’s a veiled shot at the Blues. If it wasn’t he’d bring up other players who have had questionable ‘incidents’ like Kane (Patrick and Evander), or Probert, or Pinto, or Voynov, etc. But none of them played for the Blues so he won’t acknowledge any of their wrongdoings.
Blues Dave wrote: ↑26 Jul 2025 12:31 pm
It doesn't sound right with the information we've all been allowed to see/know. Are all backgrounds going to be investigated? Starting for no reason at all with Bettman? For openers. Just sayin', start at the top. Just my opinion.
That’s a good point and this stuff has been going on in hockey for a long time…way before it became a real option for a female to file a lawsuit. Players have to be more careful today but that still doesn’t negate certain aspects of that pro athlete lifestyle
Did they investigate Craig MacTavish’s background? He killed a young mother. Took her young daughter’s mother away for life. Changed a family’s life forever. He was convicted.
Did they investigate ROR’s background. He paid the big bucks to get a non guilty, but clearly was guilty of several serious offenses.
Kappy committed serious a serious offense and just had to sorry and step on the ice. And he’s not even a big time player. Armstrong welcomed him with open arms.
It’s hilarious when you think about it…hey
MacTavish was convicted of vehicular homicide over 40 years ago. It’s conceivable that the NHL would handle it differently if the same situation occurred today.
As far as ROR and Kapanen, you have to understand that there’s a difference between drunk driving where no one was hurt and sexual assault, right?
I would imagine these guys are going to have to get counseling and complete some sort of a program and then ultimately be allowed to play again.
Sexual assault? Were they not found not guilty of that?
I would say yes drunk driving is worse than no committing sexual assault.
The Average Gatsby wrote: ↑26 Jul 2025 19:07 pm
As far as ROR and Kapanen, you have to understand that there’s a difference between drunk driving where no one was hurt and sexual assault, right?
Explain that to MADD or the daughter of the MacT incident
The Average Gatsby wrote: ↑26 Jul 2025 19:07 pm
As far as ROR and Kapanen, you have to understand that there’s a difference between drunk driving where no one was hurt and sexual assault, right?
Explain that to MADD or the daughter of the MacT incident
Except MacTavish did hurt someone, which differentiates it from the ROR or Kapanen incident. I would imagine that most people in MAAD would agree that a rape is a more heinous crime than a dui where no one was hurt.
Moving away from the "well they allow this but why this" portion of the convo I want to revisit the legalities mentioned on p 1 of this thread.
The NHL and the players association, like all sports, have a contract in place that covers off ice conduct of players, prospects etc. This is a contract this is mutually bargained for. I'm sure terms might change as new CBA's are reached but the general principle has always been in place.
And like all other pro sports, the league has the right to determine who can and can't play based on off ice behavior. There may be those in this thread that don't like that situation X warrants a ban while situation Y lets a guy coach. Too bad.
There will be no lawsuits and whoever mentioned "standing" originally has it back asswards. It's not a standing issue for the league. It's a standing issue for the players. As in they very likely don't have a leg to stand on if they try to sue their way into playing. The league may very well eventually relent but right now they have ruled and not much these guys can do a thing about it.
The Average Gatsby wrote: ↑26 Jul 2025 19:07 pm
As far as ROR and Kapanen, you have to understand that there’s a difference between drunk driving where no one was hurt and sexual assault, right?
Explain that to MADD or the daughter of the MacT incident
Except MacTavish did hurt someone, which differentiates it from the ROR or Kapanen incident. I would imagine that most people in MAAD would agree that a rape is a more heinous crime than a dui where no one was hurt.
The Average Gatsby wrote: ↑26 Jul 2025 19:07 pm
As far as ROR and Kapanen, you have to understand that there’s a difference between drunk driving where no one was hurt and sexual assault, right?
Explain that to MADD or the daughter of the MacT incident
Except MacTavish did hurt someone, which differentiates it from the ROR or Kapanen incident. I would imagine that most people in MAAD would agree that a rape is a more heinous crime than a dui where no one was hurt.
Who raped someone?
The NHL is not bound by the legal argument of innocent until proven guilty. They have a responsibility to protect their image. I would imagine they don’t want to be known as the gang rape league, even if it’s only alleged. So they’re own investigation. As they should!
The Average Gatsby wrote: ↑26 Jul 2025 19:07 pm
As far as ROR and Kapanen, you have to understand that there’s a difference between drunk driving where no one was hurt and sexual assault, right?
Explain that to MADD or the daughter of the MacT incident
Except MacTavish did hurt someone, which differentiates it from the ROR or Kapanen incident. I would imagine that most people in MAAD would agree that a rape is a more heinous crime than a dui where no one was hurt.
Who raped someone?
The NHL is not bound by the legal argument of innocent until proven guilty. They have a responsibility to protect their image. I would imagine they don’t want to be known as the gang rape league, even if it’s only alleged. So they’re own investigation. As they should!
There was no gang rape or rape of any kind, nor was there ever really any reason to think there was(which is why it was dismissed in the first place). The NHL will be investigating if they broke rules/code of conduct stuff not if they raped someone. Which really just means going through some motions so people think they care at all.
The Average Gatsby wrote: ↑26 Jul 2025 19:07 pm
As far as ROR and Kapanen, you have to understand that there’s a difference between drunk driving where no one was hurt and sexual assault, right?
Explain that to MADD or the daughter of the MacT incident
Except MacTavish did hurt someone, which differentiates it from the ROR or Kapanen incident. I would imagine that most people in MAAD would agree that a rape is a more heinous crime than a dui where no one was hurt.
ROR slandered a woman. He lied to Police. He was so wasted driving he plowed into a building. He ran away. All very serious crimes.
The Average Gatsby wrote: ↑26 Jul 2025 19:07 pm
As far as ROR and Kapanen, you have to understand that there’s a difference between drunk driving where no one was hurt and sexual assault, right?
Explain that to MADD or the daughter of the MacT incident
Except MacTavish did hurt someone, which differentiates it from the ROR or Kapanen incident. I would imagine that most people in MAAD would agree that a rape is a more heinous crime than a dui where no one was hurt.
Who raped someone?
The NHL is not bound by the legal argument of innocent until proven guilty. They have a responsibility to protect their image. I would imagine they don’t want to be known as the gang rape league, even if it’s only alleged. So they’re own investigation. As they should!
Correct. The NHL has optics to consider. And also, the NHL is going to consider a ton more stuff than just the final verdict. All these guys signed NHL contracts that contain a morals clause. Did any of these guys violate that? Hide their conduct from their respective teams to get and keep those contracts? Lie to the NHL in their investigation? We as fans won’t know the answer to those questions but the NHL will. These guys don’t have a slam dunk to continue their NHL careers just because they were acquitted.
