I actually like Kerry Sayers but I am very biased as she was the lead reporter for Fox Chicago White Sox baseball coverage in 2005.

 

 

I always liked Kerry on tv. She was fine on Comcast too. Just really bad on the radio.

But once again, for what? He is not charged with any crime at the moment. There is literally no way they can suspend or sit a player forcefully without actual charges.

The Hawks could simply not play him if they wanted.

The fact that the Hawks are playing him in the preseason games tells me they know he's innocent. If he were actually guilty, there's no chance they would even put him on the ice.

how would the blackhawks know that Kane is innocent?

The Hawks could simply not play him if they wanted.

Thats true.

 

 

how would the blackhawks know that Kane is innocent?

They certainly know more than we do. Kane's legal team is surely filling them in on everything. They must know that there's no way he can be proven guilty. The Hawks are smart and are very concerned with their image- they wouldn't let Kane play in the preseason and then take heat for it once he's proven guilty.

But once again, for what? He is not charged with any crime at the moment. There is literally no way they can suspend or sit a player forcefully without actual charges.

 

In the NHL has this ever happened? I dont even pretend to think the NFL has any bearing on actual reality.

 

I can't find the rule book now, but there is a specific clause that says he can be suspended without charges.

 

And I'm sure the Blackhawks can sit him with pay.

The fact that the Hawks are playing him in the preseason games tells me they know he's innocent. If he were actually guilty, there's no chance they would even put him on the ice.

 

Were Blackhawks front office members in the room at the same time? If not, they don't know anything for sure.

Just to let the legal situation play out and avoid all the craziness and bad publicity going on.

 

"Suspend" is the wrong word, I see nothing wrong with having him sit out for now while still getting paid.

 

Unless the NHL is privy to a clean set of facts that the rest of us aren't, as muddy as this case is, I don't agree. I want to see something way more dependable, such as a grand jury indictment, before I am willing to jump on that bandwagon.

I can't find the rule book now, but there is a specific clause that says he can be suspended without charges.

 

And I'm sure the Blackhawks can sit him with pay.

Your top point would be contested heavily by the players union.

 

Bottom point is something they could do for sure.

The fact that the Hawks are playing him in the preseason games tells me they know he's innocent. If he were actually guilty, there's no chance they would even put him on the ice.

 

Not really. Not at all actually. It might mean they think he is innocent, or it might even mean they think he is guilty, but it can't be proven enough to take a PR hit for playing him.

Were Blackhawks front office members in the room at the same time? If not, they don't know anything for sure.

Allow me to rephrase. It tells me that they know he cannot be proven guilty.

 

They certainly know more than we do. Kane's legal team is surely filling them in on everything. They must know that there's no way he can be proven guilty. The Hawks are smart and are very concerned with their image- they wouldn't let Kane play in the preseason and then take heat for it once he's proven guilty.

Edited September 24, 201510 yr by Jose Abreu

Not really. Not at all actually. It might mean they think he is innocent, or it might even mean they think he is guilty, but it can't be proven enough to take a PR hit for playing him.

How? (bold)

This is all I can find, its hard to find the NHL personal conduct policy

 

In the event Kane is formally arrested and charged with rape, Bettman could use his broad disciplinary powers set forth in Section 18-A.5 of the collective bargaining agreement and suspend Kane indefinitely with pay while the legal proceedings play out. Section 18-A.5 provides that, during the pendency of a criminal investigation, “the League may suspend the Player pending the League’s formal review and disposition of the matter where the failure to suspend the Player during this period would create a substantial risk of material harm to the legitimate interests and/or reputation of the League.”

 

It looks like Bettman tried to invoke this against Voynov and it was repealed and the Kings actually got salary relief.

Edited September 24, 201510 yr by RockRaines

How? (bold)

 

You can bet your bottom dollar that they Hawks have their people looking into this, and aren't just trusting Kane and his lawyer. Who knows what information they have. The Hawks have also shown that they are perfectly willing to put unsightly people on their payroll, regardless of their past, when it wins them games and doesn't cost them money.

Not really. Not at all actually. It might mean they think he is innocent, or it might even mean they think he is guilty, but it can't be proven enough to take a PR hit for playing him.

 

I'm pretty sure this means they can:

 

18-A.5 Criminal Investigation.

A Player subject to Commissioner Discipline for Off-Ice

Conduct may seek a reasonable delay in such proceedings in order to retain and seek the advice

of counsel in the event his conduct may also be subject to a criminal investigation by any

governmental authority, or in the event of an ongoing civil proceeding where the Player has been

named as a defendant. The League may suspend the Player pending the League's formal review

and disposition of the matter where the failure to suspend the Player during this period would

create a substantial risk of material harm to the legitimate interests and/or reputation of the

League.

You are good, I couldnt find that s*** at all. Talk about muddy language. Its nothing like the NFL one where they basically can do whatever they want for a suspension at any time.

I'm pretty sure this means they can:

 

18-A.5 Criminal Investigation.

A Player subject to Commissioner Discipline for Off-Ice

Conduct may seek a reasonable delay in such proceedings in order to retain and seek the advice

of counsel in the event his conduct may also be subject to a criminal investigation by any

governmental authority, or in the event of an ongoing civil proceeding where the Player has been

named as a defendant. The League may suspend the Player pending the League's formal review

and disposition of the matter where the failure to suspend the Player during this period would

create a substantial risk of material harm to the legitimate interests and/or reputation of the

League.

 

ref the bold, this is a fine timeline here. lawyers will surely have a better grasp of it than i an armchair whatever i am.

but wouldn't it come to a point if he is charge with the crime???

Erie Country DA Frank Sedita will hold a presser 11am tomorrow re: tampering allegations per WGRZ on twitter.

 

EDIT: 10AM Central Time

Edited September 24, 201510 yr by Knuckles

Erie Country DA Frank Sedita will hold a presser 11am tomorrow re: tampering allegations per WGRZ on twitter.

 

EDIT: 10AM Central Time

 

Hopefully it's basically saying the accuser's lawyer is a liar

Hopefully it's basically saying the accuser's lawyer is a liar

 

 

for this discussion, why???

for this discussion, why???

 

To prove that they do have all the evidence and it's properly taken care of and stored.

 

And prove still that Kane did not do this.

To prove that they do have all the evidence and it's properly taken care of and stored.

 

And prove still that Kane did not do this.

 

that is the only answer.

For what exactly?

Being accused of sexual assault.

 

They can still pay him, but they shouldn't be parading him out there out of respect for potential victims.

To prove that they do have all the evidence and it's properly taken care of and stored.

 

And prove still that Kane did not do this.

Honestly, they won't be able to prove Kane didn't do it. He can never truly be exonerated, but he likely won't get charged.

 

The fact is, the DNA isn't the issue. If she didn't consent and he even tried to do something, that's still foul play.

Being accused of sexual assault.

 

They can still pay him, but they shouldn't be parading him out there out of respect for potential victims.

Someone who hasnt been charged with a crime doing their job isnt parading around.