Breaking: charges coming for 2018 WJC

[Darkwing Puck]

"I'm glad I wasn't there" would also be good. The problem is "It was a very fortunate bounce to not obviously be a part of something like that." That suggests that if he had been there, he would have taken part in the alleged assault.

Again, I'm sure that's not what he meant. I think SeaDawg is right and he phrased it the way they are conditioned to answer all questions.

[ross10019]

"I'm glad I wasn't there" would also be good. The problem is "It was a very fortunate bounce to not obviously be a part of something like that." That suggests that if he had been there, he would have taken part in the alleged assault.

Again, I'm sure that's not what he meant. I think SeaDawg is right and he phrased it the way they are conditioned to answer all questions.

Or he just chose the wrong words. He’s a soft-spoken guy who look like he doesn’t love the mics in his face, and here he has that plus in the most high pressure scenario given the topic, so he misspeaks. Give the guy a break.

[PenguinHunter]

"I'm glad I wasn't there" would also be good. The problem is "It was a very fortunate bounce to not obviously be a part of something like that." That suggests that if he had been there, he would have taken part in the alleged assault.

Again, I'm sure that's not what he meant. I think SeaDawg is right and he phrased it the way they are conditioned to answer all questions.

I feel that it only suggests that if you want it to suggest that.

- - - Updated - - -

Or he just chose the wrong words. He’s a soft-spoken guy who look like he doesn’t love the mics in his face, and here he has that plus in the most high pressure scenario given the topic, so he misspeaks. Give the guy a break.

well said. Not every NHL player loves the like light or has a law degree and can speak like a lawyer.

[Darkwing Puck]

If you take the words at face value, "It was very fortunate...not to be a part of something like that" pretty clearly says that it was luck that kept him from being involved. I don't think for a second that's what he meant, just that his choice of words was unfortunate.

[Invictus]

Makar is a guy that once got the referee to waive the oppositions penalty.

He wasn't there and he's glad about it. I think people are reading into it a bit much.

[PenguinHunter]

Makar is a guy that once got the referee to waive the oppositions penalty.

He wasn't there and he's glad about it. I think people are reading into it a bit much.

people got their pitchforks and want to get all the ogres, even the friendly ones like Shrek!

[2014olympicgold]

He's being honest. He's glad he wasn't there so he didn't have to deal with the public asking him questions, or dealing with the PR nightmare. Was it something a PR team would write? No, but it's just him saying "I'm glad I don't have to deal with the same stuff as Batherson, who's not being charged but had to go 2yrs with the cloud over him".

[Belexus75]

people got their pitchforks and want to get all the ogres, even the friendly ones like Shrek!

yup! We are living, and have been for a while, in a world where anything little bit suspicious and you are guilty until proven innocent. It’s often not right but it’s what we do…

[ross10019]

He's being honest. He's glad he wasn't there so he didn't have to deal with the public asking him questions, or dealing with the PR nightmare. Was it something a PR team would write? No, but it's just him saying "I'm glad I don't have to deal with the same stuff as Batherson, who's not being charged but had to go 2yrs with the cloud over him".

That’s a good point. How are the Batherson and Howden types getting through this, involved but not involved (at least not to the point of enough proof to be charged).

[SeaDawg]

Not sure if this has been discussed already, but I wonder why Hockey Canada won't let certain players represent Canada if those players are in fact completely clear of the incident. It seems like Makar is 100% clear and, truth be told, the only player who would represent Canada in the Olympics. I know none of this compares to what's happened to the victim, but I feel bad that Makar won't be able to represent Canada in his prime. Olympic participation is so rare an opportunity.

[2014olympicgold]

Not sure if this has been discussed already, but I wonder why Hockey Canada won't let certain players represent Canada if those players are in fact completely clear of the incident. It seems like Makar is 100% clear and, truth be told, the only player who would represent Canada in the Olympics. I know none of this compares to what's happened to the victim, but I feel bad that Makar won't be able to represent Canada in his prime. Olympic participation is so rare an opportunity.

Ya, I don't know how they go about this before the 2026 Olympics. Could be they hope the trial is done before the Olympics happen. Or they'll lift it closer to the Olympics.

[ross10019]

Ya, I don't know how they go about this before the 2026 Olympics. Could be they hope the trial is done before the Olympics happen. Or they'll lift it closer to the Olympics.

They are 100% going to lift it. It’s an unduly harsh step and would probably invite litigation.

In any event Hockey Canada is just doing it for posture i’m sure.

[LawMan]

Not sure if this has been discussed already, but I wonder why Hockey Canada won't let certain players represent Canada if those players are in fact completely clear of the incident. It seems like Makar is 100% clear and, truth be told, the only player who would represent Canada in the Olympics. I know none of this compares to what's happened to the victim, but I feel bad that Makar won't be able to represent Canada in his prime. Olympic participation is so rare an opportunity.

I agree that it is very unfortunate and unfair that "completely cleared" players like Makar, who was not in London at the time are still banned.
I think the team wide ban was somewhat reasonable while the investigation was going on.
I suspect the reason it remains in place is a few reason:
- bad press and guilt by association
- a desire for Hockey Canada to show it is "taking this seriously"
- the concern that initially reports were 8 players involved and only 5 were charged, thus speculation that a player could be one of the other 3
- fear that other players could still be called to testify in the trial

I could see defending the ban against any player who was at the gala based on the fear they were one of the "other 3 players".
But really punishing Makar, and the few others who were not even at the gala seems too much given Makar can unequivocally establish his innocence. I would hope and suspect that once the heat dies down in the coming months Hockey Canada issues some sort of "update" that since Makar was not at the gala he is cleared to play.

As noted, Makar is the only player on that team who has real shot at the 4 Nations Cup or Olympics so there will be pressure to allow him to play, and again, given his complete alibi that would be fair.

[Eskimo Brother]

My take on Canada upholding the ban is that there's two reasons for it:
A) to look better and because there is no real big push back on it yet, but it will be at least softened so Makar can go to the Olympics. That's basically a given.
B) It keeps the rest of the team on the hook to provide them incentive to continue to cooperate, and to give them a reason to be more forthcoming with information. If there are any group chats or locker room talk that Makar for example was a part of, then him sharing that to help resolve the case so the ban can be lifted might give him that extra push.

Not trying to pick on Makar, just an example here as he's the main name people are mentioning above.

[rataylor22]

yup! We are living, and have been for a while, in a world where anything little bit suspicious and you are guilty until proven innocent. It’s often not right but it’s what we do…

This is simply true, but it’s a very classic right wing outrage point lmao.