Hart on leave…

[Molly Bell]

The Fifth Estate on CBC aired an episode is called An Anatomy of a Scandal last year. It is very enlightening and depicts clearly the timeline of events. I recommend you watch it if you haven’t done so already. 
 

 

[hmc687]

16 hours ago, CoachX said:

The feelings thoughts and accusations made by unknown people on a hockey forum has no, ZERO, impact on those involved. No damage is occurring by what any of us think. The flyers have taken no action against Hart. So this is just an overly emotional response by you, because you want your star goalie back on the ice

 

to your second statement, where you say you’ll wait before making accusations… I find it interesting how hard you are arguing on Harts behalf. It sounds an awful lot like your are accusing the victim in this case

 

This is completely false.  Statements shared on here and other forums like Twitter, Insta, and all other public communities help form what's called a "public opinion/narrative".  None of us are public figures so its a very small contribution to the public narrative but we all contribute.

 

The Eagles fired Chip Kelley largely because the fans wanted him out.  Kelley got rid of fan favorite players in Nick Foles, Lesean McCoy, DeSean Jackson, and Jeremy Maclin.  Fans were outraged and the negativity boiled throughout the entire 2015 season resulting in one of the most predictable firings in recent history...

 

Not satisfied?  Try this one which hits closer to home.

 

Chuck Fletcher has been criticized by fans almost since the day he arrived.  Fans largely suspended their judgement although nearly everyone expressed concern w the signing.  Fletcher produced mediocre results (2018 - 82pts, 2019 - 89pts, 2020 - 58pts, 2021 - 61 pts, 2022 - 75 pts), but more importantly public perception was near all-time lows:

 

https://theathletic.com/3374320/2022/06/21/philadelphia-flyers-fletcher-ownership-survey/

 

https://www.sportskeeda.com/ice-hockey/news-the-devil-gone-philadelphia-flyers-fans-celebrate-firing-gm-chuck-fletcher

 

The point is - media shapes narrative and that narrative plays an enormous role in the socialization of society.  The culmination is that our itty bitty voices, when combined, do produce change.  If everyone is advocating for the same thing that same thing usually happens.

 

So, yes, your contributions (and mine and everyone else here) do have a small effect on those accused and charged.  And my belief is not just thought up in my head, its from learning about the topic from people who've been falsely accused in the past (including professional athletes):

 

https://thecrimewire.com/multifarious/Football-Player-Falsely-Imprisoned-For-Rape-Exonerated-Gets-Pro-Contract

 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-activism/meeting-the-other-side-conversations-with-men-accused-of-sexual-assault

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case

 

Here are some important points from the Duke case specifically:

 

"

Not a month goes by when I am not reminded of the damage those accusations have had on my reputation and the public's perception of my character. Sometimes only time can heal wounds.

— anonymous Duke lacrosse player, 30 for 30, Fantastic Lies (2016)

In January 2007, lacrosse team member Kyle Dowd filed a lawsuit against Duke University and against a visiting associate professor and member of the Group of 88, Kim Curtis, claiming he and another teammate were given failing grades on their final paper as a form of retaliation after the scandal broke.^[148][149] The case was settled with the terms undisclosed except that Dowd's grade was altered to a P (for "Pass").^[150]

 

Professor Houston Baker, who continued to accuse Dowd and the others of being "hooligans" and "rapists", called Dowd's mother "the mother of a farm animal" after she e-mailed him. Duke Provost Peter Lange responded to Baker, criticizing Baker for prejudging the team based on race and gender, citing this as a classic tactic of racism.^[151]

 

Duke's athletic director at the time, Joe Alleva, who forced lacrosse coach Mike Pressler's resignation, faced criticism for his handling of this case."

 

So, yes, @CoachX your contributions do matter.  The Duke lacrosse players were mistreated and discriminated against for charges that were ultimately dropped.  What's really moving is the DISCRIMINATION CONTINUED AFTER THE CHARGES WERE DROPPED.  My personal belief is that communities and forums like this one play an important role in shaping public narrative.  Most of the time it doesnt change anything, but with the severity of these charges...please consider the implications.

 

THAT MEANS...consider if the woman alleging she was gangraped was your daughter - I'd want to murder those young men.  THAT ALSO MEANS...consider if one of those young men was your son - what if he really is wrongly accused?  Will you give one f*** if he's constantly harassed in the community?  What if he turns to alcoholism?  Cant get a job?  What if he takes his own life?  Will it matter then?  Would you care then?

 

You dont know what happened and neither do I.  I am not condoning illegal behavior for anyone.  If you did the crime you better be doing the damn time.

 

What I wont do is start punishing someone for, as far as we know, a "story".  That story may evolve to have evidence including DNA and testimony/statements and text messages and even video...At that point it no longer becomes a story and instead becomes a criminal act.

 

Let's let the authorities and court do their work and find out what happened BEFORE we start holding people accountable...because we don't know.  

[hmc687]

12 hours ago, radoran said:

Are there instances that can be cited of a famous woman "making it up" (regardless of the details...)?

 

Perhaps.

 

What we do know beyond a shadow of a doubt and with no qualifications is that men rape women.

 

A lot.

 

How much?

 

A recent report said 26,000 women were impregnated by rape in an 18 month period

 

In Texas.

 

The primary statistical counter argument was that it was only 16,000.

 

So, AT BEST, 16,000 women were impregnated

 

By rape

 

In one state

 

In the last 18 months

 

Tell me again how women "make it up"?

 

I've cited examples where it happened and research suggests at least 8% of the time sexual allegations are made up.  Most of the time its real.

 

You dont know - even if your mind seems already made up - if this accusation against Hart and company is legitimate or not.

[Molly Bell]

7 minutes ago, hmc687 said:

 

I've cited examples where it happened and research suggests at least 8% of the time sexual allegations are made up.  Most of the time its real.

 

You dont know - even if your mind seems already made up - if this accusation against Hart and company is legitimate or not.

I don’t know where you are getting the 8% percent figure, but even so, that’s only 8% of the 10% of sexual assaults that ARE reported. 90% ARE NOT REPORTED. So again, false accusations are NOT the problem. Does it happen? Sure. Does it happen often? No. Does it happen even a little bit? Hardly. 
 

The National Registry of Exonerations reports that since 1989, only 52 men have been exonerated due to the false rape allegations.

This number is compared to 790 overturned murder cases. This means that men falsely accused of rape are often able to dissolve these matters before spending substantial time in jail.

 

Please watch The Anatomy of a Scandal I posted the link above. You will quickly understand that no one is “making up” stories. I am sure their defence will be about consent. They will not nor cannot deny they had sex. It will be interesting. Ben Johnson, who played for the Windsor Spitfires and drafted to NJ, was arrested and tried for sexual assault in 2013. The victim was inebriated. The judge found him guilty because she could not give consent. He was sentenced to 3 years in prison. Oh, and of course, NJ terminated his contract. 

[CoachX]

42 minutes ago, hmc687 said:

 

This is completely false. 

No it isn’t. 
 

43 minutes ago, hmc687 said:

The Eagles fired Chip Kelley largely because the fans wanted him out. 

The eagles fired Chip Kelly because he sucked as an NFL coach

 

44 minutes ago, hmc687 said:

Chuck Fletcher has been criticized by fans almost since the day he arrived.  Fans largely suspended their judgement although nearly everyone expressed concern w the signing.  Fletcher produced mediocre results

Fletcher was fired because he was horrible at his job

 

it appeares you spent a lot of time d eloping that post. Sorry, it was too long to read. I stopped after Fletcher

 

if anything I post in this forum has any negative impact on any professional athlete or celebrity, that person should get another job. The only place my opinion has any bearing in anything, is if I stop spending any money on tix, swag, or programming. And that impact is minute at best

 

if you want to glorify yourself by thinking you have an impact on matters such as this, go right ahead. You won’t change my opinion in the slightest 

[CoachX]

@hmc687

 

let me also say this, if the opinions of the people on this forum mattered in the slightest to franchises like the Flyers, Chuck Fletcher’s dumb ass would’ve be gone at the end of his first season chip Kelly would’ve never been hired and both of the offensive and defensive coordinators, for the Eagles would’ve been fired after game five of this NFL season

 

and even more so if the opinions of us on this for mattered, Ristolainen would’ve never been brought here and would’ve been out of here after about the first warm-up of pre-season

[mkscrewy]

Fletcher was fired bc of fan sentiment and “media perception” [this is rich coming from the guy who’s perception of what it’s like to live in Philadelphia is shaped by what he sees on fox and newsmax], not his rank incompetence (bad signings, “trades are hard”, giving away picks no one asked, see Ghost, missed opportunities and inability to make impact trades for picks or players in three straight drafts and TDs) that set the team back 5-10 years if allowed to continue. Ok dude. Go post on r/thathappened. 
 

why I haven’t blocked your nonsense yet is a mystery to me. 

[ruxpin]

I'm guessing hmc stands for home made crap.

 

[hmc687]

2 hours ago, Molly Bell said:

I don’t know where you are getting the 8% percent figure, but even so, that’s only 8% of the 10% of sexual assaults that ARE reported. 90% ARE NOT REPORTED. So again, false accusations are NOT the problem. Does it happen? Sure. Does it happen often? No. Does it happen even a little bit? Hardly. 
 

The National Registry of Exonerations reports that since 1989, only 52 men have been exonerated due to the false rape allegations.

This number is compared to 790 overturned murder cases. This means that men falsely accused of rape are often able to dissolve these matters before spending substantial time in jail.

 

Please watch The Anatomy of a Scandal I posted the link above. You will quickly understand that no one is “making up” stories. I am sure their defence will be about consent. They will not nor cannot deny they had sex. It will be interesting. Ben Johnson, who played for the Windsor Spitfires and drafted to NJ, was arrested and tried for sexual assault in 2013. The victim was inebriated. The judge found him guilty because she could not give consent. He was sentenced to 3 years in prison. Oh, and of course, NJ terminated his contract. 

 

What is the point of replying to me if you dont even read the post?  Triggered?

 

Anyhow, if you just read a paragraph or two of the links provided you'd find your answer;

 

"Other studies have figures in the same range. The FBI has put the number of "unfounded" rapes - those determined to be false after investigation - at 8%."

 

The case you mentioned, Ben Johnson, is not the same issue.  Can someone give consent when they're intoxicated is not the same as outright rape.  Theyre different issues.

[hmc687]

2 hours ago, CoachX said:

@hmc687

 

let me also say this, if the opinions of the people on this forum mattered in the slightest to franchises like the Flyers, Chuck Fletcher’s dumb ass would’ve be gone at the end of his first season chip Kelly would’ve never been hired and both of the offensive and defensive coordinators, for the Eagles would’ve been fired after game five of this NFL season

 

and even more so if the opinions of us on this for mattered, Ristolainen would’ve never been brought here and would’ve been out of here after about the first warm-up of pre-season

 

Everyone has an opinion.  Hell, law was birthed from opinions that use logic and science to support ideas.  When enough people share the same opinion it evolves into a movement...ya know, kinda like the #metoo movement...which is loosely related to this entire thread.

 

Sorry if thats too abstract for you

Edited January 29 by hmc687

[CoachX]

15 minutes ago, hmc687 said:

 

Everyone has an opinion.  Hell, law was birthed from opinions that use logic and science to support ideas.  When enough people share the same opinion it evolves into a movement...ya know, kinda like the #metoo movement...which is loosely related to this entire thread.

 

Sorry if thats too abstract for you

It’s pretty obvious your intent is just to argue for the sake of argument. Since you chose to resort to childish insults, I will move on

 

good luck with your crusade

[JR Ewing]

26 minutes ago, hmc687 said:

 

What is the point of replying to me if you dont even read the post?  Triggered?

 

Anyhow, if you just read a paragraph or two of the links provided you'd find your answer;

 

"Other studies have figures in the same range. The FBI has put the number of "unfounded" rapes - those determined to be false after investigation - at 8%."

 

The case you mentioned, Ben Johnson, is not the same issue.  Can someone give consent when they're intoxicated is not the same as outright rape.  Theyre different issues.

 

Let's pretend for just a moment that statistics compiled by the FBI have the slightest thing to do with an allegation made, and charges presented, in Canada. I can do that...

 

You're conflating "unfounded" with false when they're not necessarily the same thing at all. The FBI's labelling of these 8% of cases includes allegations where the victim was intoxicated, couldn't find a witness to the assault (rapists strangely tend to commit their assaults without an audience), gave conflicting testimony. Many police departments have only the one designation of "unfounded" instead of other names like "uncorroborated" which is often more accurate. The very report you've quoted has come under heavy fire as being wildly inaccurate due to these reasons, and due to that reason, the FBI was forced to tighten up their case recording process. You're quoting stats from 30 years ago which were founded to be gathered poorly.

 

Going back to Canada, where the alleged crime has brought the charges, the London Police Service has an "unfounded" rate of 34%, 1.8 times that the rest of the country and 10x that of nearby cities like Toronto. They, like most investigators, have been trained not to properly investigate sexual assault, but mostly to poke holes in the statements of those making allegations, finding unfounded cases. When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail... Many times, they don't undertake even the crudest of investigative techniques, such as talking to witnesses or the accused before labelling cases as "unfounded". When pressed to provide clarity to their investigative process, the London Police responded with reports that redacted everything other than their detachment letterhead.

 

They are not open, they are poor investigators, and they were embarrassed by the sort of spotlight that this case has brought to their Keystone cops routine. Quite frankly, I think they're a disgrace.

 

[pilldoc]

This is just a friendly reminder as we are noticing an uptick in posts that seem to be more critical in nature.

 

Per our own guidelines:

"Debates are fine, but critique the opinion, not the person."

 

In addition please try to keep the posts on topic which centers around Hart. 

 

thank you,

~doc

HF.net Manager

 

 

 

[CoachX]

2 hours ago, pilldoc said:

This is just a friendly reminder as we are noticing an uptick in posts that seem to be more critical in nature.

 

Per our own guidelines:

"Debates are fine, but critique the opinion, not the person."

 

In addition please try to keep the posts on topic which centers around Hart. 

 

thank you,

~doc

HF.net Manager

 

 

 

Yeah about that……

 

I think Hart is screwed!

 

[radoran]

9 hours ago, hmc687 said:

You dont know - even if your mind seems already made up - if this accusation against Hart and company is legitimate or not.

 

Been 100% quite clear on that from the jump.

 

I grew up watching Tawana Brawley. I saw what happened to the Duke Lacrosse team (and my brother went to UNC). I also saw how the Central Park Five got railroaded.

 

They haven't even said what he's formally charged with.

 

I'm just not sure one study's 8% number (of reported) is sufficient to impugn the victim here until - and if - she is revealed to be lying.

 

If I have a 92% chance (or better) on much of anything I'm staying with that until the 8% comes up. (ADDING @JR Ewing's post)

 

Better than just being right less than one in 10.

 

It seems more than clear that SOMETHING happened and we will no doubt learn on potentially more lurid detail (Canadian media restrictions or no) more in the coming days, weeks, and months.

 

That, I am not particularly looking forward to.

Edited January 30 by radoran

[ruxpin]

50 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

Been 100% quite clear on that from the jump.

 

I grew up watching Tawana Brawley. I saw what happened to the Duke Lacrosse team (and my brother went to UNC). I also saw how the Central Park Five got railroaded.

 

They haven't even said what he's formally charged with.

 

I'm just not sure one study's 8% number (of reported) is sufficient to impugn the victim here until - and if - she is revealed to be lying.

 

If I have a 92% chance (or better) on much of anything I'm staying with that until the 8% comes up. (ADDING @JR Ewing's post)

 

Better than just being right less than one in 10.

 

It seems more than clear that SOMETHING happened and we will no doubt learn on potentially more lurid detail (Canadian media restrictions or no) more in the coming days, weeks, and months.

 

That, I am not particularly looking forward to.

You're not paying attention. It said EIGHT PERCENT!  Argle bargle.

 

 

If you prorate it and then account for American-Canadian conversion rate it's almost 9 out of 100.

 

Or something.

Edited January 30 by ruxpin

[GratefulFlyers]

Exactly. And of course it’s a well known fact that 86% of all statistics are completely made up. 86%.

 

 

Edited January 30 by GratefulFlyers

[ruxpin]

14 minutes ago, GratefulFlyers said:

Exactly. And of course it’s a well known fact that 86% of all statistics are completely made up. 86%.

 

 

Then we should 86 the stats and the statistician they rode in on.

[CoachX]

There are three types of lies….

 

LIES!

 

DAMNED LIES!

 

and

 

STATISTICS

[hmc687]

3 hours ago, radoran said:

 

Been 100% quite clear on that from the jump.

 

I grew up watching Tawana Brawley. I saw what happened to the Duke Lacrosse team (and my brother went to UNC). I also saw how the Central Park Five got railroaded.

 

They haven't even said what he's formally charged with.

 

I'm just not sure one study's 8% number (of reported) is sufficient to impugn the victim here until - and if - she is revealed to be lying.

 

If I have a 92% chance (or better) on much of anything I'm staying with that until the 8% comes up. (ADDING @JR Ewing's post)

 

Better than just being right less than one in 10.

 

It seems more than clear that SOMETHING happened and we will no doubt learn on potentially more lurid detail (Canadian media restrictions or no) more in the coming days, weeks, and months.

 

That, I am not particularly looking forward to.

 

The 8% number is extremely relevant when youre talking about professional athletes and millions of dollars.

 

Glad youre at least honest that you're assuming guilt.  Disgusting behavior but I commend your honesty

 

 

[GratefulFlyers]

I posted this in reply to @radoran in the Bruins game thread but it’s so damn good…  actually it’s bc I really want some feedback and the Boston thread is dead.

tl;dr version: Hart has to go ASAP. He will go, one way or another. Innocent, guilty or in between doesn’t matter. I only wish it did. Hart‘s NHL career is over. Am I wrong? 
 

*********

 

Regardless how it turns out Hart is finished in Philly, in the NHL too. Even if he’s exonerated criminally (and morally too, though that ship has probably sailed), the Flyers can’t be associated with him anymore. For every PR reason in the book, before this is settled the Flyers will part company with Carter Hart. He’s an RFA after this season, if he’s still on the roster they won’t negotiate a new contract. 
 

No blame to the Flyers for cutting ties with Hart. For the team’s sake the sooner the better. Hart’s situation is poison; it’s antithetical to what the Flyers are trying to accomplish. He can’t be anywhere near the team anymore. 

I don’t envy Briere/Jones. They’ll be accused of betraying a highly-valued, well-liked teammate just when he needs his friends the most. 
 

Am I wrong? I want to be. Does anyone envision a scenario where #97 is between the pipes for the Flyers again? Help me see it too, please, if you can.
 

Edited January 30 by GratefulFlyers

[ruxpin]

27 minutes ago, GratefulFlyers said:

I posted this in reply to @radoran in the Bruins game thread but it’s so damn good…  actually it’s bc I really want some feedback and the Boston thread is dead.

tl;dr version: Hart has to go ASAP. He will go, one way or another. Innocent, guilty or in between doesn’t matter. I only wish it did. Hart‘s NHL career is over. Am I wrong? 
 

*********

 

Regardless how it turns out Hart is finished in Philly, in the NHL too. Even if he’s exonerated criminally (and morally too, though that ship has probably sailed), the Flyers can’t be associated with him anymore. For every PR reason in the book, before this is settled the Flyers will part company with Carter Hart. He’s an RFA after this season, if he’s still on the roster they won’t negotiate a new contract. 
 

No blame to the Flyers for cutting ties with Hart. For the team’s sake the sooner the better. Hart’s situation is poison; it’s antithetical to what the Flyers are trying to accomplish. He can’t be anywhere near the team anymore. 

I don’t envy Briere/Jones. They’ll be accused of betraying a highly-valued, well-liked teammate just when he needs his friends the most. 
 

Am I wrong? I want to be. Does anyone envision a scenario where #97 is between the pipes for the Flyers again? Help me see it too, please, if you can.
 

I can't find it at the moment, but according to research done by unemployed flower children in 1962, 8 percent of all goalies who are present during a sexual assault go on to have perfectly normal professional lives. So, we can stop worrying about it because clearly this means he's guaranteed to play again.   Because as we all learned in stats, 8% is always a sure thing.

Edited January 30 by ruxpin

[SCFlyguy]

8% of those reported are false?

 

What % of sexual assaults are not reported?

[radoran]

9 hours ago, hmc687 said:

Glad youre at least honest that you're assuming guilt.  Disgusting behavior but I commend your honesty

 

Didn't say I was assuming guilt. Said exactly the opposite.

 

Disgusting behavior is telling someone they said something they explicitly didn't.

 

Childish behavior that we don't have to take here.

 

And won't.

 

Take the warning.

[hmc687]

26 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

Didn't say I was assuming guilt. Said exactly the opposite.

 

Disgusting behavior is telling someone they said something they explicitly didn't.

 

Childish behavior that we don't have to take here.

 

And won't.

 

Take the warning.

 

Those are your words, not mine:

 

13 hours ago, radoran said:

 

They haven't even said what he's formally charged with.

 

I'm just not sure one study's 8% number (of reported) is sufficient to impugn the victim here until - and if - she is revealed to be lying.

 

If I have a 92% chance (or better) on much of anything I'm staying with that until the 8% comes up. (ADDING @JR Ewing's post)

 

Better than just being right less than one in 10.

 

It seems more than clear that SOMETHING happened and we will no doubt learn on potentially more lurid detail 

 

Please help me understand what take the warning means.  Is this one of those new Tik Tok jokes?