DrJockitch Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 (edited) 2 hours ago, Northern_Nuck said: Yea-No you’re right. Money in Canada can completely get police to drop their charges in a criminal case. Police were just out for a money grab and courts are for profit. I don’t know if you’ve ever been charged with anything? But usually if the police have enough grounds to charge you with something criminally there’s enough evidence to not waste everyone’s time. These boys are F*cked. Where the money comes into play and the lawyers, is that they'll probably avoid jail time when they’re found guilty. Their NHL careers are done, much like Jake Virtanen and Reid Boucher. Well, that isn’t the point I was getting to, it wasn’t about criminality. That being said when it comes to the lawyers and court cases, money is a clear advantage. My point was more that I think at some point an agent or representative in a case like this will take the civil approach to try to force a league to let a player continue to practice their craft while a criminal case is pending. Remember sports teams are often run by people like the Robert Kraft who have had their own public sexual misadventures (not meant to be flippant, just non-specific). At some point an owner will probably also prioritize winning over allegations of criminality because of their own bias. Look at the Flyers. Having an unexpectedly good year and just lost their starting goalie, they have a financial incentive to have him back playing. One thing is clear over the last six years, morality has changed and is much more transactional now. ‘Jake and Reid were not high end players and Jake was on last legs in the league anyway. Edited January 31 by DrJockitch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 Seems Dube pulled a fast one https://www.nhl.com/flames/news/team-statement-on-dillon-dube Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBird79 Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 10 minutes ago, Coconuts said: Seems Dube pulled a fast one https://www.nhl.com/flames/news/team-statement-on-dillon-dube Of course they're not going to admit publicly they knew he was going to be charged and called his leave mental health related. Maybe yes maybe no but at the very least there should be an inquiry or something by the NHL to verify that this information is actually accurate. Can't really trust people these days especially when it comes to the amount of money teams are worth. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 Just now, BigBird79 said: Of course they're not going to admit publicly they knew he was going to be charged and called his leave mental health related. Maybe yes maybe no but at the very least there should be an inquiry or something by the NHL to verify that this information is actually accurate. Can't really trust people these days especially when it comes to the amount of money teams are worth. Dunno, at the time they likely had couldn't have proven his leave was related to the investigation even if they'd had an inkling Tough to prove a guy's leave isn't related to mental health I'd give the Flames the benefit of the doubt here, they don't want egg on their face, having a player involved (a player they now don't have on the ice) is bad enough 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 Posted this yesterday but I'll post it again 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBird79 Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 Yeah I mean for sure Flames might have had zero clue. It just sticks out that he was the first to take a Leave (I think?) and it was mental health supposedly. Just warrants scrutiny rather than trust that they did the right thing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 11 minutes ago, BigBird79 said: Yeah I mean for sure Flames might have had zero clue. It just sticks out that he was the first to take a Leave (I think?) and it was mental health supposedly. Just warrants scrutiny rather than trust that they did the right thing. He was, and I get your point But it doesn't benefit the Flames at all to lie about it is the thing, and optics and PR are important nowadays Flames already have a looming retool/rebuild ahead of them, they don't need this kind of attention 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attila Umbrus Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 14 minutes ago, Coconuts said: Dunno, at the time they likely had couldn't have proven his leave was related to the investigation even if they'd had an inkling Tough to prove a guy's leave isn't related to mental health I'd give the Flames the benefit of the doubt here, they don't want egg on their face, having a player involved (a player they now don't have on the ice) is bad enough I actually will give the Flames benefit of the doubt too. They literally just got Oliver Kylington back on ACTUAL mental health leave, I remember his first game back how everyone was so happy to see him back in the NHL. Their coach mentioned it and many of the players too. Then next game after that Dube leaves due to mental stress or whatever. And Everyone on the team once again was being supportive and glad he was getting help. They just seen Kylington come back and knew his rough journey so of course they would support Dube without question...then the real news come out. So this to me makes more sense why Calgary actually come out making a statement on not knowing about Dube's situation. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Korea Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 3 hours ago, Rekker said: It's pointless. With this poster questions go unanswered and topics are deflected to avoid any true understanding of a different point of view. I would use the ignore button but after being a member since 2005 I am proud to say I haven't permanently used the ignore button yet. I will try my best to not comment on their posts anymore. Utterly pointless. I've addressed your awful comments already, multiple times. If you can't see how messed up it was, what's there to say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 2 minutes ago, Attila Umbrus said: I actually will give the Flames benefit of the doubt too. They literally just got Oliver Kylington back on ACTUAL mental health leave, I remember his first game back how everyone was so happy to see him back in the NHL. Their coach mentioned it and many of the players too. Then next game after that Dube leaves due to mental stress or whatever. And Everyone on the team once again was being supportive and glad he was getting help. They just seen Kylington come back and knew his rough journey so of course they would support Dube without question...then the real news come out. So this to me makes more sense why Calgary actually come out making a statement on not knowing about Dube's situation. Aye, more than likely it just seems like Dube lied about his motivations Although there's actually a chance he wasn't lying if he knew what was coming down the pipeline, this will cast a shadow over any career Dube goes on to have (whether in hockey or otherwise), dude is being charged with a very serious crime and this is a high profile case now I could absolutely see Dube's mental health being shit nowadays, regardless as to whether he's guilty or not It's just unfortunate that the Flames organization got caught up in it, I applaud any sports franchise that supports the mental health of their players and as you've alluded to, they've been more than willing to do so 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rekker Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 16 minutes ago, Miss Korea said: I've addressed your awful comments already, multiple times. If you can't see how messed up it was, what's there to say? You didn't address my question. See attachment. You deflected, as usual. I suppose I'm a sucker for self induced punishment addressing you again, but you never addressed it properly. Just the usual deflective response typical of your laptop, politician type responses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rekker Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 Just now, Rekker said: You didn't address my question. See attachment. You deflected, as usual. I suppose I'm a sucker for self induced punishment addressing you again, but you never addressed it properly. Just the usual deflective response typical of your laptop, politician type responses. You are sticking to your double standards? You stated that a previous sleezy sexual past applies to Jake in his case, but not a raped female. I stated neither should apply to either case. You deflected, as usual. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Korea Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 Just now, Rekker said: You are sticking to your double standards? You stated that a previous sleezy sexual past applies to Jake in his case, but not a raped female. I stated neither should apply to either case. You deflected, as usual. It obviously doesn't apply in a legal sense. The woman's story didn't add up and the acquittal was inevitable. Being a player doesn't make you innocent or guilty. But Jake did not not have a reputation as just being a player in this city. It was something far more sinister. Just ask women around his age - they'll tell you stories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rekker Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 1 minute ago, Miss Korea said: It obviously doesn't apply in a legal sense That's a better answer, or at least an answer of some sort. But by implying it applys only in a legal form is still a double standard. It tells me that you think it's ok to bring up males past consensual sexual encounters, but not a females, in a rape case. I argue that neither should be brought up in a legal or off the cuff conversation. You say it doesn't apply legally. But is it ok to bring up past consensual sexual encounters, as you keep doing, when talking about rape? I say no. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rekker Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 17 hours ago, Miss Korea said: You're not actually trying to take on the slut-shaming position, are you? Are you being for real right now? You are actually slut shaming Jake. I have simply said that neither party in a rape case should be slut shamed. Yet you find it ok to shame Jake. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Korea Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 6 minutes ago, Rekker said: That's a better answer, or at least an answer of some sort. But by implying it applys only in a legal form is still a double standard. It tells me that you think it's ok to bring up males past consensual sexual encounters, but not a females, in a rape case. I argue that neither should be brought up in a legal or off the cuff conversation. You say it doesn't apply legally. But is it ok to bring up past consensual sexual encounters, as you keep doing, when talking about rape? I say no. 3 minutes ago, Rekker said: You are actually slut shaming Jake. I have simply said that neither party in a rape case should be slut shamed. Yet you find it ok to shame Jake. You can't really slut shame a straight male who used his money and fame to treat girls like shit. That girl in the case did not have a past or a reputation to speak of. Jake was extremely well-known and naturally several women came out with allegations against him. Only one of those allegations resulted in a court trial. That's it. That's my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rekker Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 6 minutes ago, Miss Korea said: You can't really slut shame a straight male who used his money and fame to treat girls like shit. That girl in the case did not have a past or a reputation to speak of. Jake was extremely well-known and naturally several women came out with allegations against him. Only one of those allegations resulted in a court trial. That's it. That's my point. Deflecting again, my question was never pertaining to the 2018 players. It was to your orginal comments. Yet again you bring up Jakes past and I keep stating that his past, however sleazy, does not make him a rapist. In fact, he isn't. To put it simply, Jakes past does not make him a rapist. No different than a girls sexual past does not make her less of a possible victim. Yet you fail to agree to this. You have shown the same double standard again and again. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaimito Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 (edited) Trial not likely before 2026. Edited January 31 by Jaimito Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Korea Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 1 minute ago, Rekker said: Deflecting again, my question was never pertaining to the 2018 players. It was to your orginal comments. Yet again you bring up Jakes past and I keep stating that his past, however sleazy, does not make him a rapist. In fact, he isn't. To put it simply, Jakes past does not make him a rapist. No different than a girls sexual past does not make her less of a possible victim. Yet you fail to agree to this. You have shown the same double standard again and again. Jake's past resulted in multiple women wanting to tell stories and make allegations against him. Only one of those allegations came to light. As I said before, he did not just have a reputation of being promiscuous. He had a reputation of being predatory. So you trying to throw the shoe on the other foot implies there were also predatory women in this instance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rekker Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 8 minutes ago, Miss Korea said: Jake's past resulted in multiple women wanting to tell stories and make allegations against him. Only one of those allegations came to light. As I said before, he did not just have a reputation of being promiscuous. He had a reputation of being predatory. So you trying to throw the shoe on the other foot implies there were also predatory women in this instance. Again, you haven't answered my original question. To put in different words. Is it ok to bring up a males consensual sexual past in a rape case, or a females consensual sexual past in a rape case either legally or in conversation alluding to guilt or innocence. I have stated neither should count for anything. You are fine with the double stanard? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 12 minutes ago, Miss Korea said: Jake's past resulted in multiple women wanting to tell stories and make allegations against him. Only one of those allegations came to light. As I said before, he did not just have a reputation of being promiscuous. He had a reputation of being predatory. So you trying to throw the shoe on the other foot implies there were also predatory women in this instance. There could have been predatory women. Virtanen has money afterall and not every female out there is a saint. I'm not saying Virtanen couldn't have done something wrong, but your debate between you and Rekker... the truth could easily be somewhere in the middle. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Korea Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 1 minute ago, Rekker said: Again, you haven't answered my original question. To put in different words. Is it ok to bring up a males consensual sexual past in a rape case, or a females consensual sexual past in a rape case either legally or in conversation alluding to guilt or innocence. I have stated neither should count for anything. You are fine with the double stanard? Legally, no. In conversation, yes. I am holding him to a double standard because he is almost always going to be in the position of power. And there have been too many allegations (albeit unsubstantiated) against him claiming he abused that power. Come to think of it, I'm not entirely sure if Canadian justice is completely blind to gender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rekker Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 13 minutes ago, Miss Korea said: Legally, no. In conversation, yes. I am holding him to a double standard because he is almost always going to be in the position of power. And there have been too many allegations (albeit unsubstantiated) against him claiming he abused that power. Come to think of it, I'm not entirely sure if Canadian justice is completely blind to gender. Thats fine. I will leave this be. You have finally admitted to holding a double standard with this subject. Just wanted you to admit that it was indeed a double standard, which you now have. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Korea Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 8 minutes ago, Rekker said: Thats fine. I will leave this be. You have finally admitted to holding a double standard with this subject. Just wanted you to admit that it was indeed a double standard, which you now have. I really don't think this is quite the win you think this is. Do you not believe gender has any factor in SA cases? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.