1 00:00:00,120 --> 00:00:02,520 Speaker 1: Just a heads up before we get into today's episode. 2 00:00:02,520 --> 00:00:07,080 Speaker 1: This deep dive contains discussion of distressing themes, including sexual assault. 3 00:00:07,280 --> 00:00:10,320 Speaker 1: Listener discretion is advised already. 4 00:00:10,000 --> 00:00:12,719 Speaker 2: And this is this is the Daily This is the 5 00:00:12,800 --> 00:00:14,120 Speaker 2: Daily OS. 6 00:00:14,120 --> 00:00:15,840 Speaker 1: Oh, now it makes sense. 7 00:00:23,760 --> 00:00:26,040 Speaker 3: Good morning, and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Monday, 8 00:00:26,040 --> 00:00:29,480 Speaker 3: the twenty eighth of July. I'm Sam Kazlowski, I'm Emma Gillespie. 9 00:00:29,640 --> 00:00:33,479 Speaker 3: On Friday, a Canadian judge found five professional ice hockey 10 00:00:33,479 --> 00:00:37,200 Speaker 3: players not guilty of sexual assault chargers. The five players 11 00:00:37,200 --> 00:00:41,120 Speaker 3: were part of Canada's twenty eighteen World Junior Hockey Championship team, 12 00:00:41,440 --> 00:00:44,120 Speaker 3: and we're accused of assaulting a woman in a hotel 13 00:00:44,200 --> 00:00:48,040 Speaker 3: room while celebrating their victory. The multi year case exposed 14 00:00:48,240 --> 00:00:51,720 Speaker 3: serious issues within Hockey Canada, the peak body of the sport, 15 00:00:52,000 --> 00:00:56,640 Speaker 3: and has attracted intense international attention around the definition of consent. 16 00:00:57,120 --> 00:00:58,960 Speaker 3: On today's podcast, M and I are going to break 17 00:00:59,000 --> 00:01:01,720 Speaker 3: down what happened in this case, how we got here, 18 00:01:01,880 --> 00:01:03,400 Speaker 3: and what this verdict means. 19 00:01:03,440 --> 00:01:06,040 Speaker 1: Now we'll be right back with today's deep dive after 20 00:01:06,080 --> 00:01:07,880 Speaker 1: a quick message from our sponsor. 21 00:01:11,760 --> 00:01:12,080 Speaker 4: Sam. 22 00:01:12,120 --> 00:01:15,120 Speaker 1: Before we get into the details of this case, which, 23 00:01:15,160 --> 00:01:20,759 Speaker 1: as you've flagged has been this long running saga in Canada. Yeah, 24 00:01:20,800 --> 00:01:23,839 Speaker 1: can you give us some background on who these players are? 25 00:01:24,040 --> 00:01:28,640 Speaker 1: And also I think the significance of Canadian hockey. Obviously 26 00:01:28,680 --> 00:01:31,080 Speaker 1: for us here in Australia, this is not a hockey 27 00:01:31,120 --> 00:01:34,080 Speaker 1: country per se, but in a country like Canada, ice 28 00:01:34,120 --> 00:01:37,479 Speaker 1: hockey is a massive, massive deal, right it is. 29 00:01:37,560 --> 00:01:39,759 Speaker 3: And the significance of the sport and the way it's 30 00:01:39,760 --> 00:01:42,880 Speaker 3: intertwined with government and the standing of hockey players is 31 00:01:42,920 --> 00:01:44,880 Speaker 3: a really important part of this story. So it makes 32 00:01:44,880 --> 00:01:45,959 Speaker 3: sense to talk through all of that. 33 00:01:46,080 --> 00:01:48,040 Speaker 1: It's Canada's AFL, right. 34 00:01:47,680 --> 00:01:50,360 Speaker 3: Oh might actually bigger than that, I think, because it's 35 00:01:50,400 --> 00:01:52,720 Speaker 3: not like it's even got the competitor. It is the 36 00:01:52,840 --> 00:01:56,280 Speaker 3: unifying sport of Canada. So the five players that we're 37 00:01:56,280 --> 00:02:00,120 Speaker 3: talking about today are Carter Hart, Michael McLeod, Dylan Debay, 38 00:02:00,200 --> 00:02:04,400 Speaker 3: Alex Fomenton and Carl Foote. They're now age between twenty 39 00:02:04,400 --> 00:02:06,680 Speaker 3: five and twenty seven, and at the time of the 40 00:02:06,720 --> 00:02:09,720 Speaker 3: alleged incident in twenty eighteen, they were all part of 41 00:02:09,800 --> 00:02:13,840 Speaker 3: Canada's World Junior Championship team. Now, the World Junior Championship 42 00:02:13,880 --> 00:02:17,000 Speaker 3: is a massive deal in Canadian hockey. It's an annual 43 00:02:17,000 --> 00:02:19,680 Speaker 3: tournament for players who are under twenty. So it's like 44 00:02:19,680 --> 00:02:23,080 Speaker 3: the rising Stars kind of scene, and making the team 45 00:02:23,240 --> 00:02:27,440 Speaker 3: is considered a huge stepping stone towards professional careers. Four 46 00:02:27,480 --> 00:02:29,360 Speaker 3: of these five players that were talking about went on 47 00:02:29,440 --> 00:02:32,240 Speaker 3: to play in the NHL, which is the world's premier 48 00:02:32,320 --> 00:02:33,120 Speaker 3: ice hockey league. 49 00:02:33,240 --> 00:02:37,680 Speaker 1: Okay, so talk me through the allegations made against this 50 00:02:37,720 --> 00:02:38,919 Speaker 1: group of young players. 51 00:02:39,080 --> 00:02:41,960 Speaker 3: So the allegation center around an incident that took place 52 00:02:42,000 --> 00:02:45,240 Speaker 3: in January of twenty eighteen at a hotel in Ontario, 53 00:02:45,480 --> 00:02:49,000 Speaker 3: following a team celebration. The alleged victim, who was referred 54 00:02:49,040 --> 00:02:52,519 Speaker 3: to in the court proceedings as em, was twenty years 55 00:02:52,560 --> 00:02:55,640 Speaker 3: old at the time. Now, according to her testimony, she 56 00:02:55,720 --> 00:02:58,679 Speaker 3: went to the hotel room for consensual sex with one 57 00:02:58,680 --> 00:03:01,400 Speaker 3: of the players, Michael mc cloud, but she told the 58 00:03:01,440 --> 00:03:05,720 Speaker 3: court she was shocked and scared when four other players arrived. 59 00:03:05,960 --> 00:03:08,440 Speaker 3: She testified that she felt like she was in autopilot 60 00:03:08,480 --> 00:03:12,240 Speaker 3: mode and felt numb and outnumbered during what followed. And 61 00:03:12,280 --> 00:03:15,280 Speaker 3: it was originally reported that eight players were involved, but 62 00:03:15,440 --> 00:03:18,480 Speaker 3: only five are actually named in this court proceeding. Okay, 63 00:03:18,800 --> 00:03:21,720 Speaker 3: and so the defense teams for all five players, and 64 00:03:21,760 --> 00:03:25,200 Speaker 3: it's worth, noting that they were all individually represented by 65 00:03:25,200 --> 00:03:30,400 Speaker 3: different defense teams. They argued generally that Em had consensually 66 00:03:30,480 --> 00:03:34,560 Speaker 3: participated in all of the sexual activities, which included sexual 67 00:03:34,600 --> 00:03:37,880 Speaker 3: intercourse with all five of the men, and they presented 68 00:03:37,960 --> 00:03:41,560 Speaker 3: video evidence from the night which they claimed proved her consent. 69 00:03:42,080 --> 00:03:47,960 Speaker 1: Okay, So five players all charged over essentially alleged rape 70 00:03:48,240 --> 00:03:51,840 Speaker 1: in a hotel room against this unnamed victim. Yeah, she 71 00:03:52,000 --> 00:03:55,760 Speaker 1: is identified as under the initials EM. It's a case 72 00:03:55,800 --> 00:03:58,720 Speaker 1: that we know has been going on for seven years. 73 00:03:59,280 --> 00:04:01,880 Speaker 1: So I want to understand kind of the long running 74 00:04:01,960 --> 00:04:04,920 Speaker 1: nature of these proceedings. How did it all first come 75 00:04:04,920 --> 00:04:05,280 Speaker 1: to light? 76 00:04:05,480 --> 00:04:07,920 Speaker 3: Well, this is the really complicated part of this story. 77 00:04:08,000 --> 00:04:11,080 Speaker 3: So there's a bit of a timeline here. In twenty eighteen, 78 00:04:11,320 --> 00:04:15,520 Speaker 3: Em told family members about the alleged assault. The family 79 00:04:15,560 --> 00:04:19,640 Speaker 3: members then reported it to Hockey Canada, this peak organization. 80 00:04:20,040 --> 00:04:24,040 Speaker 3: Hockey Canada then informed local police and began their own 81 00:04:24,040 --> 00:04:28,640 Speaker 3: internal investigation. Now, at this stage, the players themselves weren't 82 00:04:28,720 --> 00:04:32,840 Speaker 3: told about the complaint or either investigation, okay, And then 83 00:04:32,960 --> 00:04:36,839 Speaker 3: by twenty twenty, both investigations had concluded. Police decided not 84 00:04:36,920 --> 00:04:41,520 Speaker 3: to lay charges and Hockey Canada's investigation remained confidential, and 85 00:04:41,560 --> 00:04:44,400 Speaker 3: we still don't know what the results of that investigation were. 86 00:04:44,839 --> 00:04:47,880 Speaker 3: And that's where things sat for the next two years. 87 00:04:48,120 --> 00:04:50,800 Speaker 3: The players still didn't know what had happened. 88 00:04:51,040 --> 00:04:55,239 Speaker 1: Okay, so police have been involved, the sports Peak body 89 00:04:55,279 --> 00:04:59,000 Speaker 1: has been investigating, but the alleged victim herself hadn't actually 90 00:04:59,080 --> 00:05:04,600 Speaker 1: sought to press charges criminally per se. So what changed? 91 00:05:04,640 --> 00:05:06,960 Speaker 1: How did the world find out about this story? 92 00:05:07,520 --> 00:05:10,480 Speaker 3: So we have these investigations that wrap up in twenty twenty. 93 00:05:10,520 --> 00:05:13,800 Speaker 3: In May of twenty twenty two, a sport news outlet 94 00:05:13,839 --> 00:05:17,279 Speaker 3: called TSN publicly revealed the allegations for the first time, 95 00:05:17,680 --> 00:05:21,279 Speaker 3: and in that reporting, TSN also revealed that Hockey Canada 96 00:05:21,600 --> 00:05:24,960 Speaker 3: had quietly paid millions of dollars to settle a sexual 97 00:05:25,000 --> 00:05:28,280 Speaker 3: assault claim without the players knowing about it. Wow, And 98 00:05:28,320 --> 00:05:31,840 Speaker 3: that triggered a massive scandal, and Canadian police reopened their 99 00:05:31,839 --> 00:05:35,719 Speaker 3: criminal investigation based on new information, and another news outlet, 100 00:05:35,920 --> 00:05:39,200 Speaker 3: the Globe and Mail newspaper, it reported that Hockey Canada 101 00:05:39,320 --> 00:05:43,760 Speaker 3: had a dedicated fund for settling sexual assault cases against 102 00:05:43,800 --> 00:05:44,720 Speaker 3: its players. 103 00:05:45,040 --> 00:05:48,960 Speaker 1: So an internal investigation that I'm sure this organization had 104 00:05:49,000 --> 00:05:52,000 Speaker 1: hoped would go away quietly with a settlement deal reached 105 00:05:52,000 --> 00:05:55,240 Speaker 1: with the alleged victim becomes a kind of national scandal 106 00:05:55,400 --> 00:05:59,560 Speaker 1: about the sport. More broadly, tell me about this dedicated fund, 107 00:05:59,560 --> 00:06:01,280 Speaker 1: What does that actually mean and look like. 108 00:06:01,480 --> 00:06:04,479 Speaker 3: So, Hockey Canada is an organization partially funded by the 109 00:06:04,520 --> 00:06:07,320 Speaker 3: Canadian government, So when this reporting came out, there was 110 00:06:07,360 --> 00:06:11,239 Speaker 3: this immense scrutiny from the government as to whether any 111 00:06:11,279 --> 00:06:15,480 Speaker 3: taxpayer funds had been used in the settlements. Interesting Hockey 112 00:06:15,480 --> 00:06:18,960 Speaker 3: Canada executives later told Canada's Parliament in a number of 113 00:06:19,000 --> 00:06:23,120 Speaker 3: hearings that the organization had paid millions across twenty one 114 00:06:23,360 --> 00:06:27,480 Speaker 3: separate cases since nineteen eighty nine to alleged victims of 115 00:06:27,520 --> 00:06:30,919 Speaker 3: sexual assault. And the fallout was swift and severe. So 116 00:06:31,040 --> 00:06:35,200 Speaker 3: major corporate sponsors like Nike and Scotiabank terminated their agreements 117 00:06:35,240 --> 00:06:38,600 Speaker 3: with Hockey Canada. The entire board of directors stepped down, 118 00:06:38,760 --> 00:06:42,760 Speaker 3: the CEO resigned, the Canadian government pulled all funding until 119 00:06:42,839 --> 00:06:47,000 Speaker 3: new leadership was installed, and this new leadership eventually acknowledged 120 00:06:47,040 --> 00:06:50,400 Speaker 3: there were systemic issues in the culture of the organization 121 00:06:50,480 --> 00:06:51,760 Speaker 3: and the culture of hockey. 122 00:06:51,880 --> 00:06:55,000 Speaker 1: More broadly, this is massive. I keep kind of trying 123 00:06:55,040 --> 00:06:59,520 Speaker 1: to imagine an equivalent scandal like this happening, for example, 124 00:06:59,520 --> 00:07:01,359 Speaker 1: in the AFILL What it would be like for the 125 00:07:01,520 --> 00:07:04,200 Speaker 1: entire board to step down these kind of decades long 126 00:07:04,240 --> 00:07:07,839 Speaker 1: revelations of cover ups. I'm sure it would dominate the 127 00:07:07,839 --> 00:07:11,560 Speaker 1: news cycle here and there would be calls for legal proceedings. 128 00:07:11,640 --> 00:07:14,480 Speaker 1: So that is kind of what we have seen in Canada. 129 00:07:15,000 --> 00:07:18,040 Speaker 1: So let's talk about the trial itself. Tell me about 130 00:07:18,040 --> 00:07:20,040 Speaker 1: the legal process. What did that look like? 131 00:07:20,400 --> 00:07:22,880 Speaker 3: Okay, so we're at twenty twenty two when these reports 132 00:07:22,920 --> 00:07:26,600 Speaker 3: come out. It's then twenty twenty four January twenty twenty 133 00:07:26,600 --> 00:07:30,200 Speaker 3: four when police finally do lay sexual assault charges against 134 00:07:30,240 --> 00:07:33,480 Speaker 3: these five players. They all plead not guilty and the 135 00:07:33,600 --> 00:07:36,840 Speaker 3: charges carry a maximum prison sentence of ten years. The 136 00:07:36,880 --> 00:07:39,840 Speaker 3: trial began in May of this year, so a couple 137 00:07:39,880 --> 00:07:42,840 Speaker 3: of months ago. It was not a smooth trial. The 138 00:07:42,920 --> 00:07:46,400 Speaker 3: first jury had to be dismissed after a defense lawyer 139 00:07:46,480 --> 00:07:50,160 Speaker 3: accidentally encountered one of the jurors during a lunch break. 140 00:07:50,600 --> 00:07:54,200 Speaker 3: A second jury was selected. They were also dismissed after 141 00:07:54,280 --> 00:07:57,040 Speaker 3: jurors complained to the judge that the defense lawyers were 142 00:07:57,120 --> 00:08:00,360 Speaker 3: quote judging and making fun of them. So at that 143 00:08:00,400 --> 00:08:03,200 Speaker 3: point there had been two juries who had come through 144 00:08:03,200 --> 00:08:05,920 Speaker 3: the courtroom and been dismissed. There were obviously some serious 145 00:08:05,920 --> 00:08:08,720 Speaker 3: delays to the progress of this trial, and at that 146 00:08:08,840 --> 00:08:12,120 Speaker 3: point the judge made the rare decision to proceed without 147 00:08:12,160 --> 00:08:14,680 Speaker 3: a jury at all, and she would make the call herself. 148 00:08:14,720 --> 00:08:17,880 Speaker 1: Okay, So because it was such a high profile case, 149 00:08:18,200 --> 00:08:21,360 Speaker 1: there's obviously always concerns with these kinds of trials that 150 00:08:21,560 --> 00:08:25,040 Speaker 1: a jury will find it hard to not be swayed 151 00:08:25,040 --> 00:08:28,080 Speaker 1: by the public discourse or disconnect from that. But this 152 00:08:28,160 --> 00:08:31,440 Speaker 1: sounds like kind of misconduct from the defense lawyers. 153 00:08:31,560 --> 00:08:34,880 Speaker 3: Yeah, it's not typically the reasons we see juries dismissed 154 00:08:34,880 --> 00:08:36,240 Speaker 3: in these high profile cases. 155 00:08:36,440 --> 00:08:38,440 Speaker 1: Yeah, I was going to say, it seems quite unusual. 156 00:08:38,480 --> 00:08:40,600 Speaker 3: And at the time of dismissing the second jury and 157 00:08:40,640 --> 00:08:43,320 Speaker 3: making the decision to go to a judge only trial, 158 00:08:43,559 --> 00:08:46,240 Speaker 3: there were notes about the impact on the alleged victim 159 00:08:46,800 --> 00:08:51,960 Speaker 3: and of the defendants themselves of an unnecessary extension of 160 00:08:52,000 --> 00:08:52,520 Speaker 3: this trial. 161 00:08:52,640 --> 00:08:55,319 Speaker 1: Because when a jury is dismissed, a retrial is called, 162 00:08:55,679 --> 00:08:59,480 Speaker 1: then proceeding stuff from scratch exactly exactly can be retraumatizing 163 00:08:59,520 --> 00:09:04,160 Speaker 1: for victors and distressing if you are being prosecuted unfairly. 164 00:09:03,960 --> 00:09:06,520 Speaker 3: And it's very unusual in the Canadian system, but it 165 00:09:06,520 --> 00:09:10,920 Speaker 3: did mean that Justice Maria Kurokia did continue as the 166 00:09:11,000 --> 00:09:13,839 Speaker 3: sole decision maker. So then we got to the actual 167 00:09:13,880 --> 00:09:17,920 Speaker 3: trial itself and the alleged victim testified for nine days 168 00:09:18,200 --> 00:09:21,560 Speaker 3: total that included eight days of cross examination by the 169 00:09:21,600 --> 00:09:25,800 Speaker 3: five defense teams. The court was shown extensive video, photographic, 170 00:09:25,920 --> 00:09:30,600 Speaker 3: and electronic messaging evidence, plus character references for the defendant. Now, 171 00:09:30,640 --> 00:09:33,760 Speaker 3: only one of the five accused chose to take the 172 00:09:33,800 --> 00:09:34,640 Speaker 3: stand himself. 173 00:09:35,040 --> 00:09:38,520 Speaker 1: What did we learn from that one accused player who 174 00:09:38,520 --> 00:09:40,480 Speaker 1: took the stand? Did we learn anything? 175 00:09:41,160 --> 00:09:45,040 Speaker 3: Ultimately, what we learned was that from the perception of 176 00:09:45,080 --> 00:09:50,040 Speaker 3: the accused, this was a consensual sexual encounter that was 177 00:09:50,080 --> 00:09:54,640 Speaker 3: with the willing participant and was at no point along 178 00:09:54,720 --> 00:09:57,680 Speaker 3: the journey made aware of the fact that there was 179 00:09:57,679 --> 00:10:01,040 Speaker 3: not consent offered or continued. It was really just a 180 00:10:01,040 --> 00:10:05,200 Speaker 3: way to bring a first person perspective to what the 181 00:10:05,280 --> 00:10:08,199 Speaker 3: defense teams, the five defense teams had been trying to 182 00:10:08,240 --> 00:10:11,240 Speaker 3: prosecute in this case. The other interesting part of his testimony, though, 183 00:10:11,440 --> 00:10:15,040 Speaker 3: was the discussions about the impact on his sporting career. Okay, 184 00:10:15,120 --> 00:10:16,960 Speaker 3: and that becomes relevant in a minute. 185 00:10:16,720 --> 00:10:19,400 Speaker 1: All right, So just to recap. It's like, we almost 186 00:10:19,440 --> 00:10:23,040 Speaker 1: have five trials, five mini trials within this bigger trial 187 00:10:23,080 --> 00:10:28,280 Speaker 1: because we have five defendants, five defense teams. Then on Friday, 188 00:10:28,360 --> 00:10:31,720 Speaker 1: we did finally get a judgment in this long running saga. 189 00:10:31,800 --> 00:10:33,400 Speaker 1: What did the judge conclude? 190 00:10:33,679 --> 00:10:37,560 Speaker 3: Yeah, so on Friday, the judge found all five defendants 191 00:10:37,760 --> 00:10:40,920 Speaker 3: not guilty. The judge told the courtroom that she did 192 00:10:40,920 --> 00:10:44,679 Speaker 3: not find EM's evidence to be quote, credible or reliable, 193 00:10:45,280 --> 00:10:50,240 Speaker 3: and in giving her decision, she cited inconsistencies in EM's testimony, 194 00:10:50,679 --> 00:10:54,079 Speaker 3: particularly around her claims about her level of intoxication and 195 00:10:54,200 --> 00:10:57,760 Speaker 3: her mental state, which the judge said did not affect 196 00:10:57,800 --> 00:10:59,520 Speaker 3: EM's ability to consent. 197 00:11:00,040 --> 00:11:04,000 Speaker 1: Okay, what has the response been like to this verdict? 198 00:11:04,040 --> 00:11:06,640 Speaker 1: With so much attention on this case, I'm sure there 199 00:11:06,679 --> 00:11:08,400 Speaker 1: has been some division with this ruling. 200 00:11:08,520 --> 00:11:11,000 Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, definitely. I mean outside of court, there was 201 00:11:11,280 --> 00:11:14,240 Speaker 3: a large public presence with a lot of demonstrators, and 202 00:11:14,360 --> 00:11:17,160 Speaker 3: then lawyers came out and both sides gave statements. So 203 00:11:17,360 --> 00:11:21,440 Speaker 3: the lawyers for EM, the alleged victim, said that she 204 00:11:21,679 --> 00:11:25,720 Speaker 3: was very disappointed with the court's assessment of her credibility. 205 00:11:26,080 --> 00:11:30,600 Speaker 3: One of EM's lawyers, Karen Bellhumar was particularly critical of 206 00:11:30,760 --> 00:11:33,840 Speaker 3: how em was treated during the trial itself. 207 00:11:34,240 --> 00:11:39,920 Speaker 2: Her treatment during cross examination at times was insulting, unfair, marking, 208 00:11:40,120 --> 00:11:45,240 Speaker 2: and disrespectful, none of which was necessary. Yet she maintained 209 00:11:45,280 --> 00:11:48,680 Speaker 2: her composure and kept her emotions in check, only to 210 00:11:48,720 --> 00:11:51,280 Speaker 2: be criticized for not acting enough flick a victim. 211 00:11:51,840 --> 00:11:55,080 Speaker 3: Meanwhile, lawyers for the five men said their clients were 212 00:11:55,120 --> 00:11:57,840 Speaker 3: pleased with the verdict, but they did acknowledge that the 213 00:11:57,920 --> 00:12:02,559 Speaker 3: damage to their reputations and the five men's sporting careers 214 00:12:02,600 --> 00:12:04,199 Speaker 3: had been quote significant. 215 00:12:04,640 --> 00:12:06,800 Speaker 4: The Crown attorney did not have to take this case 216 00:12:06,840 --> 00:12:10,440 Speaker 4: to trial. Mister Hurt, in particular, was willing to engage 217 00:12:10,480 --> 00:12:13,760 Speaker 4: in a restorative justice process. He was willing to be 218 00:12:13,840 --> 00:12:17,480 Speaker 4: publicly named and prepared to use his public platform to 219 00:12:17,559 --> 00:12:21,560 Speaker 4: teach other athletes about how to ensure that their sexual 220 00:12:21,679 --> 00:12:28,160 Speaker 4: encounters are responsible and thoughtful. Instead of pursuing restorative justice, 221 00:12:28,280 --> 00:12:32,840 Speaker 4: the Crown forced a distressing and unnecessary trial to the 222 00:12:32,880 --> 00:12:38,240 Speaker 4: detriment of mister Hart, his co defendants, the complainant, and 223 00:12:38,480 --> 00:12:39,480 Speaker 4: the Canadian public. 224 00:12:39,960 --> 00:12:44,240 Speaker 1: Okay, so we have this legal trial against five men 225 00:12:44,280 --> 00:12:48,080 Speaker 1: who were charged with sexual assault years after the alleged incident. 226 00:12:48,080 --> 00:12:50,880 Speaker 1: Took place. With so many of these cases, we see 227 00:12:51,080 --> 00:12:56,679 Speaker 1: the evidence is largely hearsay if it is a historic allegation. Ultimately, 228 00:12:56,840 --> 00:13:00,120 Speaker 1: the men have been cleared. So what has been the 229 00:13:00,160 --> 00:13:03,920 Speaker 1: reaction from the sporting body, the NHL, which faced this 230 00:13:04,040 --> 00:13:07,800 Speaker 1: kind of controversy and criticism over these decades of cover ups, 231 00:13:07,800 --> 00:13:11,640 Speaker 1: of payouts, of this tax payer funding potentially being misused. 232 00:13:12,200 --> 00:13:14,720 Speaker 1: Are the five men going to be granted back into 233 00:13:14,720 --> 00:13:15,400 Speaker 1: the sport? 234 00:13:15,679 --> 00:13:17,600 Speaker 3: Well, firstly, I just want to say how weird it 235 00:13:17,679 --> 00:13:20,920 Speaker 3: is to go straight to the sporting careers, and I 236 00:13:20,920 --> 00:13:23,400 Speaker 3: think that it's important to acknowledge. You and I chatted 237 00:13:23,440 --> 00:13:26,280 Speaker 3: about how to kind of bring this into the story, 238 00:13:26,320 --> 00:13:29,720 Speaker 3: but it's an important aspect because of the cultural reckoning 239 00:13:30,240 --> 00:13:33,880 Speaker 3: that this case has triggered within the sport in Canada. 240 00:13:34,440 --> 00:13:36,400 Speaker 3: And as you said earlier, this is the biggest sport 241 00:13:36,400 --> 00:13:39,680 Speaker 3: in the country, and so the NHL has been under 242 00:13:39,720 --> 00:13:43,360 Speaker 3: a lot of pressure to handle this judgment whichever way 243 00:13:43,400 --> 00:13:46,200 Speaker 3: it went in the right way. And so they released 244 00:13:46,200 --> 00:13:49,400 Speaker 3: a statement just after the verdict was announced and said 245 00:13:49,440 --> 00:13:53,080 Speaker 3: that the five men would remain ineligible to play until 246 00:13:53,080 --> 00:13:56,440 Speaker 3: it determines next steps. And they released this statement saying 247 00:13:56,440 --> 00:13:59,199 Speaker 3: that even though the allegations weren't proven to be criminal, 248 00:14:00,000 --> 00:14:03,000 Speaker 3: behavior at issue was unacceptable. 249 00:14:02,400 --> 00:14:05,520 Speaker 1: Okay, and I suppose that speaks to whatever happened in 250 00:14:05,559 --> 00:14:08,880 Speaker 1: that room on that night. We know that five athletes 251 00:14:09,040 --> 00:14:13,920 Speaker 1: representing a national sport did engage in some kind of 252 00:14:14,520 --> 00:14:18,600 Speaker 1: sexual misconduct under what a sporting kind of body would 253 00:14:18,679 --> 00:14:19,760 Speaker 1: consider misconduct. 254 00:14:19,920 --> 00:14:22,680 Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't think it was a particularly surprising response 255 00:14:22,960 --> 00:14:26,800 Speaker 3: from the NHL. But the NHL Players Association, which would 256 00:14:26,840 --> 00:14:30,200 Speaker 3: represent the interests of the five men because they are 257 00:14:30,680 --> 00:14:33,720 Speaker 3: potential or current players of the NHL, they took a 258 00:14:33,800 --> 00:14:37,280 Speaker 3: very different position. They argued the players quote should now 259 00:14:37,320 --> 00:14:40,000 Speaker 3: have the opportunity to return to work and said that 260 00:14:40,040 --> 00:14:42,840 Speaker 3: they'll address this dispute directly with the NHL. 261 00:14:43,360 --> 00:14:47,440 Speaker 1: It's an interesting one, for sure, because regardless of kind 262 00:14:47,480 --> 00:14:50,600 Speaker 1: of what athletes wishes are, when you play at a 263 00:14:50,600 --> 00:14:54,160 Speaker 1: professional level, you do become an ambassador, a role model 264 00:14:54,640 --> 00:14:59,440 Speaker 1: for the sport. With these kind of big picture conversations 265 00:14:59,680 --> 00:15:04,160 Speaker 1: and questions looming over sport and integrity, I wanted to 266 00:15:04,280 --> 00:15:07,560 Speaker 1: zoom out and talk to you, Sam about why you 267 00:15:07,600 --> 00:15:11,840 Speaker 1: think this case was so significant in Canada, why it's 268 00:15:11,880 --> 00:15:14,680 Speaker 1: attracted so much attention around the world. You know to 269 00:15:14,720 --> 00:15:16,360 Speaker 1: the point that you and I are talking about it 270 00:15:16,400 --> 00:15:16,920 Speaker 1: here today. 271 00:15:17,040 --> 00:15:20,520 Speaker 3: Sure, I think that ultimately this just exposed so much 272 00:15:20,560 --> 00:15:23,600 Speaker 3: more than the facts of the case itself. It exposed 273 00:15:23,720 --> 00:15:29,520 Speaker 3: massive issues within Canadian hockey and Canadian hockey culture, and 274 00:15:29,600 --> 00:15:32,800 Speaker 3: the fact that Hockey Canada had paid out millions across 275 00:15:32,840 --> 00:15:36,360 Speaker 3: twenty one cases since nineteen eighty nine does suggest that 276 00:15:36,400 --> 00:15:39,160 Speaker 3: this was not an isolated incident, and that this is 277 00:15:39,160 --> 00:15:42,320 Speaker 3: a story that you know, booted out an entire leadership 278 00:15:42,400 --> 00:15:46,320 Speaker 3: of the biggest sporting organization in the country. I also think, 279 00:15:46,360 --> 00:15:48,600 Speaker 3: in looking at the reactions from the lawyers outside of 280 00:15:48,600 --> 00:15:51,840 Speaker 3: court on Friday, that this case really did raise difficult 281 00:15:51,880 --> 00:15:56,720 Speaker 3: questions for Canadians about consent and how sexual assault allegations 282 00:15:56,760 --> 00:16:00,600 Speaker 3: are handled in their justice system and within sports bodies. 283 00:16:01,040 --> 00:16:04,280 Speaker 3: There was a piece of analysis from researchers from Canada's 284 00:16:04,320 --> 00:16:07,400 Speaker 3: Western University published in The Conversation, and I wanted to 285 00:16:07,560 --> 00:16:10,440 Speaker 3: end on this quote. The research has said the events 286 00:16:10,480 --> 00:16:13,960 Speaker 3: examined in this most recent trial and not isolated incidents, 287 00:16:13,960 --> 00:16:18,120 Speaker 3: but symptoms of deeper systemic failures within elite sport until 288 00:16:18,120 --> 00:16:22,600 Speaker 3: sport organizations address the foundational cultural elements that enable misconduct 289 00:16:22,800 --> 00:16:27,960 Speaker 3: toxic maculinity, institutional protection and erosion of consent culture, meaningful 290 00:16:28,040 --> 00:16:29,720 Speaker 3: change will remain elusive. 291 00:16:30,400 --> 00:16:34,480 Speaker 1: Some really powerful words there from those researchers with Canada's 292 00:16:34,480 --> 00:16:37,800 Speaker 1: Western University and a fascinating case Sam. Thank you so 293 00:16:37,920 --> 00:16:39,760 Speaker 1: much for walking us through all of that today. 294 00:16:39,880 --> 00:16:40,760 Speaker 3: Of course, Thanks em. 295 00:16:40,960 --> 00:16:43,280 Speaker 1: That's all for today's deep dive. Thank you so much 296 00:16:43,360 --> 00:16:46,760 Speaker 1: for listening. If this episode has raised any concerns with you, 297 00:16:46,840 --> 00:16:50,000 Speaker 1: help is available through one eight hundred. Respect will pop 298 00:16:50,040 --> 00:16:53,200 Speaker 1: some resources in the episode description. We'll be back a 299 00:16:53,200 --> 00:16:55,720 Speaker 1: little later on today with your evening news headlines, but 300 00:16:55,840 --> 00:16:57,080 Speaker 1: until then, take care. 301 00:17:01,480 --> 00:17:03,840 Speaker 3: My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda 302 00:17:04,040 --> 00:17:08,840 Speaker 3: Bunjelung Calgudin woman from Gadighl Country. The Daily oz acknowledges 303 00:17:08,920 --> 00:17:11,080 Speaker 3: that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the 304 00:17:11,119 --> 00:17:14,720 Speaker 3: Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and torrest 305 00:17:14,760 --> 00:17:17,600 Speaker 3: Rate island and nations. We pay our respects to the 306 00:17:17,600 --> 00:17:20,400 Speaker 3: first peoples of these countries, both past and present.