#faceoff king

Innocent Until Proven Guilty: A Stereanalysis.

Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. - United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN UDHR) Article 11 (look, international relations IS a useful major!)

Let's start off with the (very limited) facts of the case, from the lawsuit: At a gala in London, Ontario, celebrating the 2018 gold medal of the Canada World Junior's team, a woman (EM) meets a hockey player (Player 1). She becomes increasingly drunk and ends up going to Player 1's hotel room. They engage in sex (seemingly, at this point, consensual, though EM is intoxicated and possibly Player 1 is as well - the ethics of drunk sex are not my realm to parse out, and I will not be analyzing whether this specific instance is rape or not, as it is ultimately moot). Player 1 then invites his friends into the hotel room without EM's knowledge or consent. The number varies; in the lawsuit there are eight total players, but police say there are "reasonable grounds" for only five players. Important to note here is that most media says the lawsuit is against eight CHL players, among which 2018 WJC players are included. These five-to-eight players then proceed to sexually assault EM, intimidating her and blocking off exits. EM and her mother soon open a case with the local police on this issue. Player 1, upon being informed of this investigation by Hockey Canada, goes so far as to contact EM through Instagram and beseech her to "put an end to" the investigation.

Yikes.

We've got up to eight players (five that are going to be named in the report, it seems) that have raped EM. At least one of these, and likely several, but presumably not all, are members of the 2018 WJC roster. We will assume that all these facts are accurate.

On the picture: I can't find it anywhere. I'm looking. It doesn't help that seemingly ALL of Reddit is shut off with the API protests. Fire it my way, if you can. I've seen mentions of it in other places, so I will believe it exists, but I'd like to see it.

Mikey not saying anything doesn't mean he was or was not involved, in my opinion. It would be, frankly, stupid, to make comments on the investigation while it's pending. Remember how anything you say can and will be used against you? Exactly. Any legal advisor worth their salt would tell you to say as little as possible in front of the media.

Every other player on that team, barring (I think) Formenton and Batherson (both on the Sens), have denied they did anything. Formenton's contract wasn't re-inked and he's playing in Switzerland. Batherson was wearing an A when there was a recent injury on the Senators' roster. If we go Court of Public Opinion and claim Formenton is guilty and Batherson is innocent, we still have four-to-seven players' names to fill in. And it's entirely possible that none of those players were on the WJC roster.

Now, consider the NHL's position on this. They're just emerging from the wakes of the Kyle Beach scandal. Do they really need a second major sex scandal on their hands? Especially one at the hands of players and not staff? Would it not be easier to simply round up the players reasonably suspected to be part of the sexual assault and explain to them that yeah, you'll be taking a "personal" leave of absence or playing in Europe until this is resolved?

"But Stereax!" you say. "Cale Makar! Carter Hart! Those guys might be involved and they would be protected by the league because they're stars!" To this, I simply say: Mikey is not a star. As much as he plays a vital role on the Devils, he is far from a Jack Hughes-esque kind of player. I'm fairly certain they could Europe him with little or no real issues.

"But Stereax!" you say. "They did so little about Kyle Beach, even though Kane and Toews were publicly implicated! Nothing happened to them, and they're all but proven to have known and done nothing about it!" To this, I once again say: Mikey is not the face of a franchise. He is not a star. In the eyes of hockey, he is a replaceable 4C. You remove him from the team, you can put Shango or Boqvist in as the 4C and shuffle the third line accordingly.

Another thing to note is how, from the very limited information Mikey did give us, he stated that he was working with the authorities. If a person sexually assaulted someone else, and then ended up under an investigation, would that person willingly work with the authorities? Would they go so far as to say that on record? I'm doubtful.

Even if the NHL was to take no action, I sincerely believe that the Devils' organization would have done something if they were aware that Mikey was involved in the scandal. Unlike some organizations in the league (coughcoughRangerswhocough), the Devils tend to do things with general respect for humans. Like Fitz, who took the time to sit down with Severson and basically tell him that we'd love to keep him but he's too expensive, then help engineer the sign-and-trade to Columbus, getting Sevo the extra contract year. From a team that outwardly had a gender equality night, it would seem antithetical to the organization's roots to knowingly shelter a rapist. Hell, why would they write a FEATURE PIECE on McLeod in the playoffs? That's just asking for trouble.

Speaking of the playoffs - the report is dragging on. It's been months since we were promised it. Devils fans had worried that the report, if it would be indicting Mikey, was being postponed until the Devils were out of the playoffs so as not to mess the team up in the middle of their run. The run's been over for a month now. The report still isn't out. That's perhaps a good sign, that the report wasn't being held just so Mikey could have his "last hurrah", so to speak.

Think now about Ben Johnson. When he was found guilty of rape, the Devils terminated his contract basically immediately. Johnson never played for the Devils, splitting time between the AHL and ECHL affiliates (Albany Devils & Adirondack Thunder). Even so, it was a hard-line and immediate stance from the organization in a league that keeps trying to get Mitchell Miller ice time.

Or Jake Virtanen - though he was found not guilty of sexual assault by court, his contract was bought out and then he hauled ass to EHC Visp in the Swiss NL, where he got in enough fights with his teammates that the team basically told their manager they'd walk if he stayed. Recall Virtanen was a 6th overall pick in the NHL, probably the best non-lockout-era player the NL had ever seen, and he was that unpopular and much of a jackass.

Contrast this with Mikey, who the entire team seems to love. Take the Desert Island interviews, where every player asked says they'd take Mikey or Nate (the Superbuddies) or both onto a desert island for entertainment. Or how Luke's first dinner with the Devils was with the Superbuddies, Jack, and Dawson. Or generally how Mikey (and Nate) seem to parent half the young'uns on the team. Is Jack "our parents raised us to believe in gay rights and support the queer community" Hughes going to knowingly associate with a rapist? Is the team, which Jack has outright said was excited and had no issues with pride night and were looking forward to supporting that - is this a team that would all stick by someone who's committed sexual assault? Hockey culture and all, but I'd hope the Devils would be better than that.

And here we get to the most intriguing part of Clouder's Defense, what I call the 7+1 Theory. There have been whispers of this in the media and among circles of those in the know. The 7+1 Theory, most simply, is: Eight players were in the room where it happened. Seven sexually assaulted EM. One walked in and out, "unaware" of what was going on. (How "unaware" is up for debate. Some sources say that Player 8 was unsure whether whatever was happening was consensual and just resolved to stay out of it.) If this is the case, was Player 8 Mikey? We have no way of knowing.

And that's the long and short of it - we don't know. And we won't know until the report is released. And even when the report is released, how much will it say? How accurate will it be?

Now, if Mikey IS indicted in the report, all of this speculation is moot. However, I wouldn't go so far as to assume he is involved until we get the report - there are significant factors playing in his favor, which I've outlined above. I'm sure there are more that I'm forgetting, but I've spent way too long on this post already...

When the names are named and the information is released, only then will I pass judgment. Until then, I'm going to stick with the UDHR and presume innocence, both for the sake of legal thought and for the sake of my own sanity.