Several team execs, sponsors and player agents tell me they are bracing for the NHL’s possible release of an investigation report re an alleged sexual assault involving as many as eight players on Canada’s 2018 world juniors team. If NHL names and suspends players allegedly involved, affected players would likely appeal any sanctions to an arbitrator, as per CBA, and may pursue defamation lawsuits vs league, said agent of one player who attended 2018 Hockey Canada gala. (While an investigating officer in October wrote in court documents he believes there are grounds to charge at least five players, police in London continue to decline comment other than to say an investigation is ongoing.)
Is this the team from the article?
https://www.quanthockey.com/wjc-u18/en/teams/team-canada-players-2018-wjc-u18-stats.html
Good find. Eight players off that team has a good chance of affecting NHL teams and players. Red Wings currently have two players from that roster in Veleno and McIsaac. Laf and Byram were on that team roster as well.
I could see Laf being involved (blind guessing), but that fucking pains me.
Why the fuck would the NHL be the defendant in a defamation case? If anything I think it’d be the CHL in that role, no? I’m trying to understand this. Are Canada’s defamation statutes significantly different than those in the US?
US requires malice to be proven in a defamation case, however truth is still an absolute defense in either country. Suspending a player because they were part of an investigation or charged with sexual assault could still be problematic in either case, especially if not convicted.
That would depend on the provisions for such in the collective bargaining agreement, would it not? I’d imagine there’s at least one clause that allows for suspensions tied to bringing bad PR for the League and/or the game of hockey. That said, if the NHL is going to suspend players, I’d like for them to get it right and not have it turn into a shitshow of “can they or can they not do this”.
There likely is a clause, but you don’t want to be wrong in that clause. You really need the evidence public to do anything major, look at the Ray Rice case from the NFL. It was a minor suspension until the video was released, then when it wasn’t really debatable the big suspension hit. If the NHL acts too aggressively they open themselves to potential liability if the players they suspend weren’t actually involved, you want evidence a jury can’t ignore first.
Touché.
