Blue Bombers Forum
December 11, 2018, 04:54:41 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 7 [All]
  Print  
Author Topic: CFL voids contract of Euclid Cummings  (Read 6308 times)
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« on: March 07, 2018, 06:45:43 PM »

CFL releases statement on status of Euclid Cummings

TORONTO ? The Canadian Football League released the following statement on Wednesday about the status of Euclid Cummings:

?Upon learning of the criminal charges facing Euclid Cummings, CFL Commissioner Randy Ambrosie has voided his contract with the BC Lions. As these charges are before the courts, the CFL will offer no further comment.?

BC Lions general manager Ed Hervey?s statement regarding Cummings? voided contract reads as follows:

?We support the Commissioner?s decision to void the contract of Euclid Cummings in light of criminal charges he is currently facing. We were given no indication by the player or his representation that these charges existed and I assure our fans, partners and supporters of the CFL across Canada, that we would not have offered him a contract had we known about this situation. Given that matter is before the criminal courts and under a publication ban, we will not be offering further comment.?

https://www.cfl.ca/2018/03/07/cfl-releases-statement-status-euclid-cummings/
Logged
bluengold204
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 625


« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2018, 06:47:02 PM »

What did he do?
Logged
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #2 on: March 07, 2018, 06:48:21 PM »

Anyone now what Cummings is accused of doing?  

Makes you wonder if the Riders could get out of Duron Carter's contract for the same reason.  
Logged
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 20766



« Reply #3 on: March 07, 2018, 06:51:16 PM »

Anyone now what Cummings is accused of doing?  

Makes you wonder if the Riders could get out of Duron Carter's contract for the same reason.  

Possibly. My guess is that it's a more severe charge.
Logged
blue_gold_84
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 27801


Fort Hew


« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2018, 06:51:29 PM »

Anyone now what Cummings is accused of doing?  

Makes you wonder if the Riders could get out of Duron Carter's contract for the same reason.  

No idea.

But it sounds like the charges were laid prior to his contract being signed. In the case of Carter, the contract was signed prior to his being charged. Maybe that's the difference...?
Logged

#forthew

#risetogether

You can't fix stupid.
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #5 on: March 07, 2018, 06:51:41 PM »

Possibly. My guess is that it's 'worse' than Duron's.
Agreed. 
Logged
Jesse
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 12679



« Reply #6 on: March 07, 2018, 06:52:38 PM »

Given BC's response that they would not have offered the contract if they had known about the charges, it makes me think domestic violence. But that is completely made up.
Logged

My wife is amazing!
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #7 on: March 07, 2018, 06:53:38 PM »

No idea.

But it sounds like the charges were laid prior to his contract being signed. In the case of Carter, the contract was signed prior to his being charged. Maybe that's the difference...?
With Carter I'm pretty sure the charges occurred prior to the contract being signed.  Wasn't the violation in Winnipeg in November and he re-signed with the Riders in late January?  
Logged
blue_gold_84
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 27801


Fort Hew


« Reply #8 on: March 07, 2018, 06:55:04 PM »

With Carter I'm pretty sure the charges occurred prior to the contract being signed.  Wasn't the violation in Winnipeg in November and he re-signed with the Riders in late January?  

Good point. I can only assume the nature of the charges against Cummings are far more serious than those against Carter.
Logged

#forthew

#risetogether

You can't fix stupid.
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #9 on: March 07, 2018, 06:55:31 PM »

Given BC's response that they would not have offered the contract if they had known about the charges, it makes me think domestic violence. But that is completely made up.
Aren't publication bans also often used when a minor is involved?  
Logged
Jesse
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 12679



« Reply #10 on: March 07, 2018, 07:00:04 PM »

Aren't publication bans also often used when a minor is involved?  

IN the news, yes.
Logged

My wife is amazing!
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #11 on: March 07, 2018, 07:05:13 PM »

This now frees up $160k in SMS room for BC to spend on D. Might make them now the favourites to sign Muamba.
Logged
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #12 on: March 07, 2018, 07:06:00 PM »

From Drew Edwards: This is shocking. I can't remember the league ever voiding a contract in this manner.
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 20883


« Reply #13 on: March 07, 2018, 07:07:53 PM »

From Drew Edwards: This is shocking. I can't remember the league ever voiding a contract in this manner.

Muamba isn't a good fit at WIL and there is ZERO chance the defensive MOP at MLB ( Elimimian ) is sliding over to WIL.

Logged

No more excuses.
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #14 on: March 07, 2018, 07:21:25 PM »

Muamba isn't a good fit at WIL and there is ZERO chance the defensive MOP at MLB ( Elimimian ) is sliding over to WIL.

Dunk said earlier that BC was an option, presumably with Muamba at WIL. 
Logged
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3288


« Reply #15 on: March 07, 2018, 07:24:15 PM »

Aren't publication bans also often used when a minor is involved?  


yeah, it is almost certainly child abuse for a publication ban to exist and the league to act so quickly.  Maybe a particularly heinous case of domestic violence, but I would bet the former. 
Logged

grab grass 'n growl
The Zipp
Global Moderator
*****
Posts: 12140


Who gives a flying Buck...


« Reply #16 on: March 07, 2018, 07:30:26 PM »

Dan Ralph

Verified account
 
@danralphcp
Follow Follow @danralphcp
More
Have been told Cummings' deal with B.C. was worth $150,000 that included a $70,000 signing bonus which the Lions can't recoup and will have to include on their cap. #CFL


maybe they will be given some special leeway if they go over the cap??
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 20883


« Reply #17 on: March 07, 2018, 07:34:37 PM »

Dunk said earlier that BC was an option, presumably with Muamba at WIL. 

Like I said: not a good fit at WIL. I'll add IMO if that's a better position to take. Also, while you might pay a MLB $200K, I'm also not sure you'd pay a WIL that amount let alone have 2 LB's on the same team making that much.

Without knowing what's going on with Cummings, it's possible he may be re-instated before TC.
Logged

No more excuses.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 20883


« Reply #18 on: March 07, 2018, 07:36:04 PM »

Dan Ralph

Verified account
 
@danralphcp
Follow Follow @danralphcp
More
Have been told Cummings' deal with B.C. was worth $150,000 that included a $70,000 signing bonus which the Lions can't recoup and will have to include on their cap. #CFL


maybe they will be given some special leeway if they go over the cap??

Interesting. Since the league voided the contract it would seem reasonable they would take the bonus out of the Lions SMS spend.
Logged

No more excuses.
blueraid
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1355


« Reply #19 on: March 07, 2018, 08:01:44 PM »

As far as Muamba heading to the west coast...I think Wally and company are keeping the door open for Bighill IF he shakes loose...No way they're going to commit to Muamba with that possibility still out there
Logged
rubanski
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1418


« Reply #20 on: March 07, 2018, 08:47:48 PM »

Interesting. Since the league voided the contract it would seem reasonable they would take the bonus out of the Lions SMS spend.

Why? If the league voided his contract 2 weeks in to the year because he was charged with abusing children, those two weeks would count against the lions cap. The lions chose to structure the deal the way they did. This is one of several risks with paying these bonuses out.

Logged
bluengold204
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 625


« Reply #21 on: March 07, 2018, 08:52:44 PM »

Why? If the league voided his contract 2 weeks in to the year because he was charged with abusing children, those two weeks would count against the lions cap. The lions chose to structure the deal the way they did. This is one of several risks with paying these bonuses out.



Can we not accuse him of being a child abuser until the facts are in?
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 20883


« Reply #22 on: March 07, 2018, 08:54:13 PM »

Why? If the league voided his contract 2 weeks in to the year because he was charged with abusing children, those two weeks would count against the lions cap. The lions chose to structure the deal the way they did. This is one of several risks with paying these bonuses out.



Because the Lions had no way to know the league would void the contract.  The league must approve all contracts in the 1st place.

Logged

No more excuses.
rubanski
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1418


« Reply #23 on: March 07, 2018, 09:05:12 PM »

Can we not accuse him of being a child abuser until the facts are in?

My apologies if that choice of words offends.

I did not accuse him of that. It's reasonable to assume he did something fairly heinous to warrant a publication ban.


Logged
rubanski
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1418


« Reply #24 on: March 07, 2018, 09:08:26 PM »

Because the Lions had no way to know the league would void the contract.  The league must approve all contracts in the 1st place.


If you can't make him pay the money back, it's money that was spent on players and should count against the cap. The cap represents the limit the Lions are allowed to spend on players.
Logged
gobombersgo
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2877



« Reply #25 on: March 07, 2018, 09:09:22 PM »

So do the Lions try to get their signing bonus back as Cummings didn't negotiate in good faith. Or is it buyer beware?
Logged

Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 20766



« Reply #26 on: March 07, 2018, 09:11:36 PM »

So do the Lions try to get their signing bonus back as Cummings didn't negotiate in good faith. Or is it buyer beware?

There was a source somewhere on Twitter that seemed to suggest the Lions were on the hook for the 70K bonus. Not sure how accurate that is though.
Logged
booch
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1546


« Reply #27 on: March 07, 2018, 09:15:46 PM »

You can actually request to the court to have a publication ban...even if it is a petty offence...so not necessarily his charge is a heinous one...but could be
Logged
lenny
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2757


« Reply #28 on: March 07, 2018, 09:40:04 PM »

Aren't publication bans also often used when a minor is involved?  

Has nothing to do with publication of the fact of the charge. Merely protects the complainant from being named.
Logged
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #29 on: March 07, 2018, 09:47:18 PM »

Has nothing to do with publication of the fact of the charge. Merely protects the complainant from being named.
Yes I understand that. But they are typically used when a minor is involved.
Logged
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #30 on: March 07, 2018, 09:55:50 PM »

From Farhan Lalji: My understanding is Euclid Cummings has not been paid his signing bonus. Also doesn't make sense that a bonus from a contract that no longer exists would be applied to a team's salary cap. #BCLions @CFLonTSN
Logged
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #31 on: March 07, 2018, 10:08:53 PM »

Euclid Cummings name and profile has already been deleted from the cfl.ca website. This has gotta be pretty serious.
Logged
Colton
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 13574


« Reply #32 on: March 07, 2018, 10:22:37 PM »

Yes I understand that. But they are typically used when a minor is involved.

Maybe stop trying to make this a thing before it's known just in case it isn't.
Logged
kkc60
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3053


« Reply #33 on: March 07, 2018, 10:26:21 PM »

I'm all for speculation. But when it defames character or is overly personal, it should be a no-no. Because it just takes one person to read it wrong or misinterpret it and suddenly rumors that shouldn't be started start 
Logged
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #34 on: March 07, 2018, 10:30:33 PM »

Maybe stop trying to make this a thing before it's known just in case it isn't.
I didn?t make it anything. It?s well known that publication bans are typically used when a minor is involved. Having said that I have no idea what Cummings has been charged with.
Logged
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #35 on: March 07, 2018, 11:25:34 PM »

According to 3 Down Nation Cummings is facing sexual assault charges:

Provincial court documents show the 6-foot-3, 300-pound Atlanta native was charged last April with four criminal offences involving two alleged victims stemming from incidents in Vancouver on Oct. 16, 2016. His team at the time, the Winnipeg Blue Bombers, played their regular-season finale at B.C. Place on Oct. 14, 2016.

Cummings is charged with sexual assault, assault and uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm to one person, and the sexual assault of another.

http://3downnation.com/2018/03/07/euclid-cummings-facing-sexual-assault-charge-b-c-report/
Logged
GCn18
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22460


« Reply #36 on: March 07, 2018, 11:26:19 PM »

Publication bans are extremely common in cases of domestic violence. My wife used to work for Victim Services for the Province and victims often requested them and courts rarely wouldn't grant them. With minors it's automatic, but that certainly doesn't make it exclusive to them. It is a huge leap to suggest that violence or abuse against a minor is probable. However, it's definitely serious.

Also, the league voiding the contract means that any payment made is exempt from the cap. If it did then it would have simply been a release or suspension by the Lions.
Logged

Some people take this forum way too seriously.
TBURGESS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6886



« Reply #37 on: March 07, 2018, 11:26:34 PM »

http://montrealgazette.com/sports/football/cfl/bc-lions/lions-release-euclid-cummings-after-learning-of-criminal-charges/wcm/d0de71ef-1bdf-4ec3-97a8-18ae0754665f

From the article:
Quote
Provincial court documents show the 6-foot-3, 300-pound Atlanta native was charged last April with four criminal offences involving two alleged victims stemming from incidents in Vancouver on Oct. 16, 2016. His team at the time, the Winnipeg Blue Bombers, played their regular-season finale at B.C. Place on Oct. 14, 2016.

Cummings is charged with sexual assault, assault and uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm to one person, and the sexual assault of another.
Logged

Being right never gets old.
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #38 on: March 07, 2018, 11:29:05 PM »

Incident occurred while he was a Bomber.
Logged
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #39 on: March 07, 2018, 11:37:15 PM »

I?m no legal expert but is it not strange this is coming to light a year and a half after the alleged incident occurred?
Logged
GCn18
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22460


« Reply #40 on: March 07, 2018, 11:45:18 PM »

I?m no legal expert but is it not strange this is coming to light a year and a half after the alleged incident occurred?

Not strange at all in cases of sexual assault. To protect the victims it indirectly protects the accused as well because these cases are not revealed publically unless the victim allows it to be.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2018, 11:49:05 PM by GCn17 » Logged

Some people take this forum way too seriously.
The Zipp
Global Moderator
*****
Posts: 12140


Who gives a flying Buck...


« Reply #41 on: March 08, 2018, 12:02:28 AM »

Thankfully my exposure to this type of thing is very limited but the timelines sure are stretched out to me:

Oct 2016 is the incident
Charges in April 2017
Trial in October 2018

Guess the courts are really backed up...
Logged
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #42 on: March 08, 2018, 12:03:19 AM »

Bombers just released a statement but I can?t post it here because it?s a picture. Essentially the Bombers were made aware of the incident in November 2016 by Vancouver Police and Bombers then notified the league.
Logged
The Zipp
Global Moderator
*****
Posts: 12140


Who gives a flying Buck...


« Reply #43 on: March 08, 2018, 12:10:17 AM »

Bombers just released a statement but I can?t post it here because it?s a picture. Essentially the Bombers were made aware of the incident in November 2016 by Vancouver Police and Bombers then notified the league.

So the bombers knew about the incident involving the police...told the CFL...let the contract expire...esks sign him unaware??  Charges filed in April...esks still unaware???  CFL Silent??   B.C. signs him...CFL still silent - nobody knows anything??

Logged
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #44 on: March 08, 2018, 12:12:45 AM »

So the bombers knew about the incident involving the police...told the CFL...let the contract expire...esks sign him unaware??  Charges filed in April...esks still unaware???  CFL Silent??   B.C. signs him...CFL still silent - nobody knows anything??


I know. The questions will now be why did the league allow him to play last season. Doesn?t look good on the league here.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2018, 12:14:41 AM by gbill2004 » Logged
Fred C Dobbs
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1476



« Reply #45 on: March 08, 2018, 12:14:20 AM »

Here's a link to the Bomber's tweet:

https://twitter.com/jeffkhamilton/status/971550550633394176
Logged

Good advice: "There are a lot of idiots out there posting on forums. But if you ignore them, they will eventually go away."
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #46 on: March 08, 2018, 12:28:50 AM »

Jason Vega tweeted this: Welp. Looks like his career is over🤷🏽‍♂️
Logged
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #47 on: March 08, 2018, 01:28:43 AM »

More from 3 Down Nation: http://3downnation.com/2018/03/07/bombers-aware-euclid-cummings-investigation-2016-informed-cfl/
Logged
GCn18
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22460


« Reply #48 on: March 08, 2018, 01:32:34 AM »

I know. The questions will now be why did the league allow him to play last season. Doesn?t look good on the league here.

I find this whole timeline difficult to believe. My guess is that charges were not brought forward formally until after he signed with the Esks and he did not divulge the info.
Logged

Some people take this forum way too seriously.
Throw Long Bannatyne
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5503



« Reply #49 on: March 08, 2018, 01:49:11 AM »

Jason Vega tweeted this: Welp. Looks like his career is over🤷🏽‍♂️

Not defending Cummings here but he's basically being blacklisted before his trial even begins, how has the CFL determined that he is guilty?
« Last Edit: March 08, 2018, 01:59:40 AM by Throw Long Bannatyne » Logged
Jesse
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 12679



« Reply #50 on: March 08, 2018, 02:04:53 AM »

I find this whole timeline difficult to believe. My guess is that charges were not brought forward formally until after he signed with the Esks and he did not divulge the info.

Exactly. We divulged the incident but he was never charged. Then he apparently was charged in 2017 but it seems the league wasn?t aware until now.
Logged

My wife is amazing!
blue_gold_84
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 27801


Fort Hew


« Reply #51 on: March 08, 2018, 02:07:23 AM »

Not defending Cummings here but he's basically being blacklisted before his trial even begins, how has the CFL determined that he is guilty?

The CFL hasn't determined anything in that regard. Based on the severity and multitude of the charges, the league appears to have it deemed it necessary to void the player's contract and wash its hands of the situation altogether - in the hopes of avoiding any bad PR or negative optics.

Maybe in the court of public opinion these actions can be interpreted in such a way as to make him look guilty but it looks like the league is simply being proactive and protecting its interests above all else.

This is a very unfortunate development.
Logged

#forthew

#risetogether

You can't fix stupid.
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #52 on: March 08, 2018, 02:08:21 AM »

Exactly. We divulged the incident but he was never charged. Then he apparently was charged in 2017 but it seems the league wasn?t aware until now.
Read the article I posted in post 47 of this thread. It explains the timeline. 3 Down Nation has the same questions of the league.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2018, 02:10:04 AM by gbill2004 » Logged
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3288


« Reply #53 on: March 08, 2018, 02:20:05 AM »

the Bombers were aware because the Vancouver police contacted them as part of the investigation.  But the police or Crown may not have specifically notified the CFL or anyone else when they filed charges.  So, it isn't necessarily surprising that the Esks may have unwittingly signed him and had him playing.  Teams rely on players and their representation to be forthcoming in these matters.  Jordan Reaves and Duron Carter are examples, albeit with less serious crimes.

Also, on the timeline. If the Me Too movement has demonstrated anything, it's that victims may not report an assault immediately.  And once reported, the investigation can take some time to come together before charges are laid.

You would think that the league, once notified, would have followed up before last season started.  It sounds like the handoff from Orridge to Ambrosie may ave resulted in the follow up falling through the cracks.  That clearly has to change. 
Logged

grab grass 'n growl
dd
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7005


« Reply #54 on: March 08, 2018, 02:20:31 AM »

The CFL hasn't determined anything in that regard. Based on the severity and multitude of the charges, the league appears to have it deemed it necessary to void the player's contract and wash its hands of the situation altogether - in the hopes of avoiding any bad PR or negative optics.

Maybe in the court of public opinion these actions can be interpreted in such a way as to make him look guilty but it looks like the league is simply being proactive and protecting its interests above all else.

This is a very unfortunate development.
And yet they turned s blind eye on Kyries Hebert. Hypocracy at its finest
Logged
blue_gold_84
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 27801


Fort Hew


« Reply #55 on: March 08, 2018, 02:25:54 AM »

So, the WFC informed the league in November 2016 of what took place. Cummings was formally charged at the end of April 2017, two weeks after Orridge resigned as CFL Commissioner. The Eskimos, who had signed him two months earlier, were never made aware of the incident by the league. Cummings then played an entire season with not so much as a peep coming to light about what had happened.

Something just doesn't add up here.
Logged

#forthew

#risetogether

You can't fix stupid.
Tehedra
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1569


« Reply #56 on: March 08, 2018, 03:47:09 AM »

I mean innocent until proven guilty I would think. Most likely new evidence has come to light and the CFL has been notified and they are managing the PR early. Probably previously it was investigation phase but nothing was there to void a contract and pretty much kill the man's career. I'd say we will most likely see a plea or something come out soon with this type of swift action.
Logged
GCn18
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22460


« Reply #57 on: March 08, 2018, 04:32:11 AM »

Hard to blame anyone for this other than Cummings himself. The league was informed he was involved in an incident and was being investigated. 4 months go by and there is no charges against him when FA opened. The league would have no way of knowing at that point and time whether an investigation was still taking place and likely though it was over. A mistake to be sure, but they had probably told Cummings he must report it if he is charged or face a ban....which is kinda what we are now seeing.
Logged

Some people take this forum way too seriously.
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #58 on: March 08, 2018, 12:44:17 PM »

From Arash Madani: So the CFL was aware of this in 2016, and Cummings was permitted to play that year, 2017 in Edmonton and sign with BC this year.
 
Yet the CFL said it wouldn't approve a contract for Justin Cox, who was acquitted of charges in 2017.
 
Optics, not policies, seem to rule the roost.
Logged
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3288


« Reply #59 on: March 08, 2018, 01:17:06 PM »

From Arash Madani: So the CFL was aware of this in 2016, and Cummings was permitted to play that year, 2017 in Edmonton and sign with BC this year.
 
Yet the CFL said it wouldn't approve a contract for Justin Cox, who was acquitted of charges in 2017.
 
Optics, not policies, seem to rule the roost.

I think what you are seeing is a policy in development, being formed as they figure it out.

I have no problem with the Cox decision, there were several sets of charges, and being acquitted on one, doesn?t mean he has met the minimum standard for behaviour.

It?s not clear whether Ambrosie was briefed on the Cummings report when he took the job, whether protocols were in place for following up on the Bomber report, or what Ambrosie would have done even if he had the information.

What IS clear, is that after the Briles fiasco, Ambrosie gets that these matters have to be dealt with swiftly and decisively.  I don?t know what brought the Cummings situation to light now, but the pushback will result in improved protocols going forward.  Step by step, a coherent policy is starting to take shape.
Logged

grab grass 'n growl
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 20766



« Reply #60 on: March 08, 2018, 01:28:37 PM »

From Arash Madani: So the CFL was aware of this in 2016, and Cummings was permitted to play that year, 2017 in Edmonton and sign with BC this year.
 
Yet the CFL said it wouldn't approve a contract for Justin Cox, who was acquitted of charges in 2017.
 
Optics, not policies, seem to rule the roost.

Another date that is potentially also relevant is that Ambroise was hired July 5, 2017. Possibly this is an issue that he was unaware of or potentially got lost in the shuffle of leadership change.
Logged
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #61 on: March 08, 2018, 01:32:43 PM »

Another date that is potentially also relevant is that Ambroise was hired July 5, 2017. Possibly this is an issue that he was unaware of or potentially got lost in the shuffle of leadership change.
Yes that's what I was thinking as well...maybe this slipped through the cracks.  It would be interesting to know who at the CFL office the Bombers informed in November 2016. 
Logged
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #62 on: March 08, 2018, 01:44:30 PM »

More from Jeff Hamilton: To be clear, the #Bombers were aware of an incident (w/o details), not the charges. The charges were laid months later, in April 2017 (incident occurred in Oct. 2016 and WPG was contacted by Van. police in Nov. 2016). Bombers season ended mid-Nov and Cummings was pending FA.

Maybe this is the out for the CFL. They knew there was an incident but didn?t know the details.
Logged
Horseman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1181


« Reply #63 on: March 08, 2018, 01:48:21 PM »

And yet they turned s blind eye on Kyries Hebert. Hypocracy at its finest

And also a blind eye to the Carter issue. He is also charged with a criminal code offence, twice. Players, like police officers, are held to a higher standard than the average citizen, DC should also either be suspended from the CFL as a minimum until his charges are dealt with or have his contract voided by the league as well. Don't give me that, weed is going to be legal whenever it is now argument because what DC is accused of doing will still be a criminal code offence even after simple possession is legal.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2018, 01:50:32 PM by Horseman » Logged
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 26973



« Reply #64 on: March 08, 2018, 02:04:43 PM »

Innocent until proven guilty, in today's world of court case delays, etc, while it is black and white, it is also difficult to manage in a time sensitive way.

Likewise, guilty when accused is too reactionary.

The reasonable compromise is that the league and teams have to decide when the accusation becomes credible.  Just like laying charges in an incident, it generally does not get done until there is a credible case.

The Bombers were aware of the incident, and shared that info with the CFL.  Charges were laid after he became a FA.  It makes the Bombers decision not to retain his services understandable, but were the Eskimo's helped or hindered by not being informed by the CFL about the incident when they registered his contract?  Was this information something the CFL was obligated to inform the Eskimo's about?

Did the Eskimo's know about the charges being laid?  If they did, should the 2017 contract be voided at that time? 

If acquitted, does he have a case against the CFL for voiding this contract?

We don't know all the facts, or what came to light between the incident and April 2017 when the charges were eventually laid. 

 
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 20766



« Reply #65 on: March 08, 2018, 02:49:33 PM »

Innocent until proven guilty, in today's world of court case delays, etc, while it is black and white, it is also difficult to manage in a time sensitive way.

Likewise, guilty when accused is too reactionary.

The reasonable compromise is that the league and teams have to decide when the accusation becomes credible.  Just like laying charges in an incident, it generally does not get done until there is a credible case.

The Bombers were aware of the incident, and shared that info with the CFL.  Charges were laid after he became a FA.  It makes the Bombers decision not to retain his services understandable, but were the Eskimo's helped or hindered by not being informed by the CFL about the incident when they registered his contract?  Was this information something the CFL was obligated to inform the Eskimo's about?

Did the Eskimo's know about the charges being laid?
  If they did, should the 2017 contract be voided at that time? 

If acquitted, does he have a case against the CFL for voiding this contract?

We don't know all the facts, or what came to light between the incident and April 2017 when the charges were eventually laid. 

 

They said that they did not. It appears other than the Bombers and whomever they told at the league, no one knew there was anything unusual at all. It also seems clear that nobody in the CFL (other than Euclid), or it's teams, knew about formal charges until this week.
Logged
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3288


« Reply #66 on: March 08, 2018, 02:56:39 PM »

Not defending Cummings here but he's basically being blacklisted before his trial even begins, how has the CFL determined that he is guilty?

The CFL doesn't have to determine whether he is guilty or not, they just have to determine whether they want to continue  employment or not.  "Innocent until proven guilty" means the state should not deprive him of his freedom or give him a criminal record, it doesn't speak to his employment rights. 

We should also be aware that there are literally hundreds of Canadians every year who get arrested for something, can't get bail, and serve long stretches in remand before they have been judged guilty.  Many of them lose jobs because of this.  I don't think we need to apply a different standard to a guy just because he plays pro ball. 
Logged

grab grass 'n growl
Throw Long Bannatyne
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5503



« Reply #67 on: March 08, 2018, 03:06:30 PM »

According to 3 Down Nation Cummings is facing sexual assault charges:

Provincial court documents show the 6-foot-3, 300-pound Atlanta native was charged last April with four criminal offences involving two alleged victims stemming from incidents in Vancouver on Oct. 16, 2016. His team at the time, the Winnipeg Blue Bombers, played their regular-season finale at B.C. Place on Oct. 14, 2016.

Cummings is charged with sexual assault, assault and uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm to one person, and the sexual assault of another.

http://3downnation.com/2018/03/07/euclid-cummings-facing-sexual-assault-charge-b-c-report/

This is not quite correct, the game Oct. 14 against BC was only week 17, so Cummings sat through a bye week and played two more games and the West S.F. which also occurred in BC, with the Bombers.  Surprising that the Bombers did not immediately suspend him if they actually knew what the charges were related to but then again the heightened sensitivity to events of this nature has only occurred within the last year through Ambrosie's leadership.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2018, 03:10:12 PM by Throw Long Bannatyne » Logged
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 26973



« Reply #68 on: March 08, 2018, 03:20:36 PM »

This is not quite correct, the game Oct. 14 against BC was only week 17, so Cummings sat through a bye week and played two more games and the West S.F. which also occurred in BC, with the Bombers.  Surprising that the Bombers did not immediately suspend him if they actually knew what the charges were related to but then again the heightened sensitivity to events of this nature has only occurred within the last year through Ambrosie's leadership.

Charges were not laid until April... he was either accused or under investigation, and the Bombers had been advised of the incident. 

The question is, how much effort did the Bombers and CFL do to verify the credibility of the accuser(s) in the incident?  If they were deemed credible, I cannot see the Bombers allowing him to remain with the team, regardless charges being laid.  The CFL may have a different level of proof required before they step in, but once charges are laid, I would have expected them to do something.

For an investigation to take this long to result in charges, there must have been some question as to the veracity of the claims.  It is unfortunate that it was not more black and white. 
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
Jesse
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 12679



« Reply #69 on: March 08, 2018, 05:02:23 PM »

Charges were not laid until April... he was either accused or under investigation, and the Bombers had been advised of the incident. 

The question is, how much effort did the Bombers and CFL do to verify the credibility of the accuser(s) in the incident?  If they were deemed credible, I cannot see the Bombers allowing him to remain with the team, regardless charges being laid.  The CFL may have a different level of proof required before they step in, but once charges are laid, I would have expected them to do something.

For an investigation to take this long to result in charges, there must have been some question as to the veracity of the claims.  It is unfortunate that it was not more black and white. 


Uhm, zero?

They have no access to the police file or the names of the accusers.
Logged

My wife is amazing!
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 20766



« Reply #70 on: March 08, 2018, 05:11:09 PM »

Uhm, zero?

They have no access to the police file or the names of the accusers.

No kidding. Why on earth would they want to anyway?
Logged
blue_gold_84
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 27801


Fort Hew


« Reply #71 on: March 08, 2018, 05:16:29 PM »

No kidding. Why on earth would they want to anyway?

This. Implicating themselves in an ongoing criminal investigation would be recklessly irresponsible.

Determining the credibility of a serious allegation/accusation is the responsibility of the respective law enforcement agency, anyway. It's the premise and purpose of an investigation.
Logged

#forthew

#risetogether

You can't fix stupid.
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #72 on: March 08, 2018, 05:21:53 PM »

No kidding. Why on earth would they want to anyway?
I've heard of NFL teams doing this. 
Logged
blue_gold_84
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 27801


Fort Hew


« Reply #73 on: March 08, 2018, 05:24:38 PM »

I've heard of NFL teams doing this. 

Requesting access to files/information of an ongoing police investigation...?
Logged

#forthew

#risetogether

You can't fix stupid.
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 26973



« Reply #74 on: March 08, 2018, 05:41:46 PM »

Ummm.. if they were advised of the incident, who were they advised by?  Law enforcement?  Or the player?

If law enforcement was the one who notified them, that opens the door to questioning.  Why are they informing us?  Are there more questions to be asked?

There is a reason Private Investigators exist.  You have a team that you need to protect, you need to qualify the threat.  If the incident has been reported but no charges have been laid, then there is some question in the local precinct about the circumstances of the incident.  If it was a cut and dried case, charges would be laid quickly.

This is why it is incumbent on the team to do some research, to see if there is a legitimate complaint that they should be worried about.
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #75 on: March 08, 2018, 05:42:27 PM »

Requesting access to files/information of an ongoing police investigation...?
I have no idea of specifics. But I know that most NFL teams have security teams and they will liaise with local police if one of their players is under investigation.
Logged
Horseman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1181


« Reply #76 on: March 08, 2018, 06:01:16 PM »

I have no idea of specifics. But I know that most NFL teams have security teams and they will liaise with local police if one of their players is under investigation.

Police in Canada, (can't speak about the US) will not confirm or deny that someone is under investigation. It is only once an information is sworn can the police release information on the charge. If it is high profile incident, often the police will issue a press release and send it out to the media. Once an information is sworn it becomes part of the public record, so if anyone wants to contact the BC provincial court office to enquire what the charge(s) Cummings is facing that information will be released minus the names of any victims.
Logged
blue_gold_84
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 27801


Fort Hew


« Reply #77 on: March 08, 2018, 06:20:08 PM »

I have no idea of specifics. But I know that most NFL teams have security teams and they will liaise with local police if one of their players is under investigation.

I can't see that being the case in the CFL but I'm not certain. I doubt that is a luxury teams could afford.
Logged

#forthew

#risetogether

You can't fix stupid.
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3288


« Reply #78 on: March 08, 2018, 06:20:15 PM »

Ummm.. if they were advised of the incident, who were they advised by?  Law enforcement?  Or the player?

If law enforcement was the one who notified them, that opens the door to questioning.  Why are they informing us?  Are there more questions to be asked?

There is a reason Private Investigators exist.  You have a team that you need to protect, you need to qualify the threat.  If the incident has been reported but no charges have been laid, then there is some question in the local precinct about the circumstances of the incident.  If it was a cut and dried case, charges would be laid quickly.

This is why it is incumbent on the team to do some research, to see if there is a legitimate complaint that they should be worried about.

This is wrong on so many levels.  

The Bombers became aware, not because of a formal notification or liasion, but likely as part of the investigation.  It would make sense for the police to interview other people who were travelling with the suspect and may have been witnesses or in the vicinity of the incident.

At the point the Vancouver Police are starting an investigation, you don't start a parallel investigation as "research".  You take responsible actions.  You notify the league. You perhaps consult the team lawyer.  Then you wait for the investigation to conclude.  

It is also not true that whether charges are laid more quickly or slowly indicates anything about the veracity of the victim or the strength of the case.  Not all complaintants come forward right away, supporting witnesses may not be immediately available for interview, police may have other cases popping up on their caseload that get higher priority, it may have to be referred to the Crown for an opinion, there are lots of reasons a strong case may take some time before police lay charges.  

It isn't up to the Bombers to assess the validity of the complaint.  If they want to know if they should be worried, then the answer is they should be worried the minute they get a call from the police investigating one of their players.  But worrying won't influence the process at all.  
Logged

grab grass 'n growl
Throw Long Bannatyne
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5503



« Reply #79 on: March 08, 2018, 06:24:59 PM »

Police in Canada, (can't speak about the US) will not confirm or deny that someone is under investigation. It is only once an information is sworn can the police release information on the charge. If it is high profile incident, often the police will issue a press release and send it out to the media. Once an information is sworn it becomes part of the public record, so if anyone wants to contact the BC provincial court office to enquire what the charge(s) Cummings is facing that information will be released minus the names of any victims.

Is it normal procedure for the police to contact a person's employer and inform them of pending charges?  This seems bizarre to me and would seem to violate the accused's right to privacy as well as the "what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas" provision.
Logged
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #80 on: March 08, 2018, 06:31:41 PM »

Is it normal procedure for the police to contact a person's employer and inform them of pending charges?  This seems bizarre to me and would seem to violate the accused's right to privacy as well as the "what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas" provision.
A few years ago Tim Burke said that the Bombers have a relationship with City of Winnipeg Police, who will periodically visit establishments where Bomber players are known to frequent, and then report back to the Bombers if they see anything of interest. That?s different than the Cummings case, but does show that the Bombers do communicate with law enforcement about their employees.
Logged
blue_gold_84
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 27801


Fort Hew


« Reply #81 on: March 08, 2018, 06:41:26 PM »

If law enforcement was the one who notified them, that opens the door to questioning.

No, it doesn't.

I highly doubt the WFC just stood pat without looking into what happened. However, I am inclined to believe there's a limit to what's possible in such a situation. Furthermore, it isn't like CFL teams have countless resources on hand to hire a PI or launch its own formal investigation.

This is wrong on so many levels.

The Bombers became aware, not because of a formal notification or liasion, but likely as part of the investigation.  It would make sense for the police to interview other people who were travelling with the suspect and may have been witnesses or in the vicinity of the incident.

At the point the Vancouver Police are starting an investigation, you don't start a parallel investigation as "research".  You take responsible actions.  You notify the league. You perhaps consult the team lawyer.  Then you wait for the investigation to conclude.  

It is also not true that whether charges are laid more quickly or slowly indicates anything about the veracity of the victim or the strength of the case.  Not all complaintants come forward right away, supporting witnesses may not be immediately available for interview, police may have other cases popping up on their caseload that get higher priority, it may have to be referred to the Crown for an opinion, there are lots of reasons a strong case may take some time before police lay charges.  

It isn't up to the Bombers to assess the validity of the complaint.  If they want to know if they should be worried, then the answer is they should be worried the minute they get a call from the police investigating one of their players.  But worrying won't influence the process at all.  

Well said.

Is it normal procedure for the police to contact a person's employer and inform them of pending charges?

If the individual is a foreign national on a work permit here, it can be part of the process to notify his/her employer as an investigation unfolds, especially if there are multiple charges or if the charge is severe in nature.
Logged

#forthew

#risetogether

You can't fix stupid.
swansong
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 910



« Reply #82 on: March 08, 2018, 06:48:28 PM »

Players, like police officers, are held to a higher standard than the average citizen

Have you ever heard of a cop being fired from their job because of an accusation? Or are they normally sent home, with pay, until the charges have been disposed of one way or another?

Frankly, in the states, grand juries only indict cops about 5% of the time.
Logged
Horseman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1181


« Reply #83 on: March 08, 2018, 06:49:07 PM »

Is it normal procedure for the police to contact a person's employer and inform them of pending charges?  This seems bizarre to me and would seem to violate the accused's right to privacy as well as the "what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas" provision.

No, the police will not contact anyone's employer about charges unless the charged person is another police officer. Also disclosing information on players being in establishments to the employer (like a poster has stated), in this case the Bombers would subject the police service to privacy breaches. Once an information is laid/sworn (official charges) against a person it becomes public record and anyone can contact the court house of jurisdiction to find out the charges.
Logged
Horseman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1181


« Reply #84 on: March 08, 2018, 06:52:52 PM »

Have you ever heard of a cop being fired from their job because of an accusation? Or are they normally sent home, with pay, until the charges have been disposed of one way or another?

Frankly, in the states, grand juries only indict cops about 5% of the time.

Yes, I have, but normally they would be suspended typically with pay but depending on the severity of the crime they may be suspended without pay or for a minor infraction placed on administrative duties. Once the matter goes to trial or there is a guilty plea the officer, depending on the severity of the crime, may be asked to resign and failing to do so could result in proceedings to fire the officer. For a minor infraction the officer maybe docked some pay or leave time if the infraction is substantiated or simply given a reprimand.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2018, 07:01:15 PM by Horseman » Logged
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 26973



« Reply #85 on: March 08, 2018, 07:10:34 PM »

Police in Canada, (can't speak about the US) will not confirm or deny that someone is under investigation. It is only once an information is sworn can the police release information on the charge. If it is high profile incident, often the police will issue a press release and send it out to the media. Once an information is sworn it becomes part of the public record, so if anyone wants to contact the BC provincial court office to enquire what the charge(s) Cummings is facing that information will be released minus the names of any victims.

So, who informed the Bombers?
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 26973



« Reply #86 on: March 08, 2018, 07:23:13 PM »

This is wrong on so many levels.  

The Bombers became aware, not because of a formal notification or liasion, but likely as part of the investigation.  It would make sense for the police to interview other people who were travelling with the suspect and may have been witnesses or in the vicinity of the incident.

At the point the Vancouver Police are starting an investigation, you don't start a parallel investigation as "research".  You take responsible actions.  You notify the league. You perhaps consult the team lawyer.  Then you wait for the investigation to conclude.  

It is also not true that whether charges are laid more quickly or slowly indicates anything about the veracity of the victim or the strength of the case.  Not all complaintants come forward right away, supporting witnesses may not be immediately available for interview, police may have other cases popping up on their caseload that get higher priority, it may have to be referred to the Crown for an opinion, there are lots of reasons a strong case may take some time before police lay charges.  

It isn't up to the Bombers to assess the validity of the complaint.  If they want to know if they should be worried, then the answer is they should be worried the minute they get a call from the police investigating one of their players.  But worrying won't influence the process at all.  

It certainly is up to the Bombers to ***** the validity of the complaint.  Anyone could walk into the police station and accuse a Bomber player of abusing them.   The police would have to investigate, and decide whether there was sufficient evidence to proceed, and eventually lay charges.  Does the accusation trigger action by the team?  Does the charge?  Or is it not until the conviction that they are required to take action?

I'm not sure what a standard players contract contains concerning morals clauses, or what constitutes "conduct detrimental to the club", but if I'm in charge, I want to make sure I know what's going on before I act, and I want to act as soon as possible.  And while erring on the side of the accuser is probably the way this should be treated, you do have to respect your player's rights as well. 

It sounds like these are very serious charges, and I don't know what has come to light that has changed since the incident, or the charges being laid, to now, but obviously something very distinct has happened. 
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
Horseman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1181


« Reply #87 on: March 08, 2018, 07:34:04 PM »

So, who informed the Bombers?

The police will not confirm or deny an investigation, however, during an investigation, the investigator will approach potential witnesses for a statement. The police service could have contacted the club for a list of players they would be interested in speaking with. If this was the case the police would simply inform the club they are investigating an incident that took place in....and would like to speak with their players requesting contact information. They would not indicate which player it was but the Bombers could do their own canvassing amongst their players to find out what happened.
Logged
Throw Long Bannatyne
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5503



« Reply #88 on: March 08, 2018, 07:49:40 PM »

No, it doesn't.

I highly doubt the WFC just stood pat without looking into what happened. However, I am inclined to believe there's a limit to what's possible in such a situation. Furthermore, it isn't like CFL teams have countless resources on hand to hire a PI or launch its own formal investigation.

Well said.

If the individual is a foreign national on a work permit here, it can be part of the process to notify his/her employer as an investigation unfolds, especially if there are multiple charges or if the charge is severe in nature.

Good point, I'm sure the CBSA will come into play at some point as well.

Logged
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3288


« Reply #89 on: March 08, 2018, 08:10:19 PM »

It certainly is up to the Bombers to ***** the validity of the complaint.  Anyone could walk into the police station and accuse a Bomber player of abusing them.   The police would have to investigate, and decide whether there was sufficient evidence to proceed, and eventually lay charges.  Does the accusation trigger action by the team?  Does the charge?  Or is it not until the conviction that they are required to take action?

I'm not sure what a standard players contract contains concerning morals clauses, or what constitutes "conduct detrimental to the club", but if I'm in charge, I want to make sure I know what's going on before I act, and I want to act as soon as possible.  And while erring on the side of the accuser is probably the way this should be treated, you do have to respect your player's rights as well. 

It sounds like these are very serious charges, and I don't know what has come to light that has changed since the incident, or the charges being laid, to now, but obviously something very distinct has happened. 

The Bombers would only be responsible for assessing the veracity of a complaintant if the complaint is filed with the club.  If I walk in to Wade Miller's office and say "Player X was mean to me", they can assess that, and take no action.  If I walk in and say "Player X cussed out my granny with vile language, and its on tape", then yes, the Bombers might look into it and could take action if they chose to. If I walk in and say "Player X assaulted me", then the only reasonable response from the Bombers would be to refer the matter to police. 

In cases where the complaint is made to the police, and the investigation is ongoing, the Bombers role is to (a) cooperate with the investigation, and (b) dummy up and wait for the investigation to conclude. 

The Bombers can sack a player at any time, they don't have to wait for an accusation, they don't have to wait for charges to be laid, and they don't have to wait for a conviction.  Depending on the severity of the allegation they may choose to wait for one of these thresholds, but they aren't obligated to.  CFL players don't have standard employment rights.

 Even though they may want to act quickly, they should in no circumstances, be conducting parallel investigations.  Their role is not to assess the veracity of the victim, it is simply to assess whether they want to continue to employ the player in question. 
Logged

grab grass 'n growl
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 26973



« Reply #90 on: March 08, 2018, 10:05:40 PM »

The Bombers would only be responsible for assessing the veracity of a complaintant if the complaint is filed with the club.  If I walk in to Wade Miller's office and say "Player X was mean to me", they can assess that, and take no action.  If I walk in and say "Player X cussed out my granny with vile language, and its on tape", then yes, the Bombers might look into it and could take action if they chose to. If I walk in and say "Player X assaulted me", then the only reasonable response from the Bombers would be to refer the matter to police. 

In cases where the complaint is made to the police, and the investigation is ongoing, the Bombers role is to (a) cooperate with the investigation, and (b) dummy up and wait for the investigation to conclude. 

The Bombers can sack a player at any time, they don't have to wait for an accusation, they don't have to wait for charges to be laid, and they don't have to wait for a conviction.  Depending on the severity of the allegation they may choose to wait for one of these thresholds, but they aren't obligated to.  CFL players don't have standard employment rights.

 Even though they may want to act quickly, they should in no circumstances, be conducting parallel investigations.  Their role is not to assess the veracity of the victim, it is simply to assess whether they want to continue to employ the player in question. 

And how do they do that?  Magic 8 ball?
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
Tehedra
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1569


« Reply #91 on: March 08, 2018, 10:29:19 PM »

They do walk a fine line for wrongful dismissal as well as discrimination though by making a haste judgement call that could be incorrect.
Logged
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3288


« Reply #92 on: March 08, 2018, 10:46:09 PM »

They do walk a fine line for wrongful dismissal as well as discrimination though by making a haste judgement call that could be incorrect.

I don?t think the normal provisions for wrongful dismissal apply when they can cut you simply because they don?t want to pay your bonus (which is common practice in the CFL).  The notion of ?just cause? is foreign to CFL players.
Logged

grab grass 'n growl
GCn18
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22460


« Reply #93 on: March 09, 2018, 04:40:06 AM »

They do walk a fine line for wrongful dismissal as well as discrimination though by making a haste judgement call that could be incorrect.

There is no such thing as wrongful dismissal in the CFL. They are independent contractors employed by their CFL clubs and have non guaranteed contracts that can be terminated at any time, for any reason the teams see fit.
Logged

Some people take this forum way too seriously.
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 26973



« Reply #94 on: March 09, 2018, 12:51:36 PM »

Yes, the contract is not guaranteed, and you can drop a player at any time for any reason.  But do you want to cut a player based on an unsubstantiated claim?  I can see cutting a player for performance issues, or for SMS issues, or both, that makes sense from both an operations and a business standpoint.

But cutting a player for off field issues, without substantiation, does not make sense.  The incident happened, and no charges were immediately laid.  How does the team know what actually happened, if anything at all?  Dropping a substantial asset without due diligence on the off chance that something did happen is not something that is prudent.

If the police had laid charges immediately, and there were public reports of the incident and witness / victim statements, yes, of course, immediate dismissal.  Or, if the team employed an investigator, and he found substantial evidence, sure.

But with no charges, and so little public evidence that he was able to sign 2 (two) subsequent contracts with neither team knowing of the incident, in a league that has a zero tolerance for this, cutting him immediately was not reasonable. 

 
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
The Zipp
Global Moderator
*****
Posts: 12140


Who gives a flying Buck...


« Reply #95 on: March 09, 2018, 01:39:47 PM »

I am sure the Bombers had a bit of insight into what may or may not have happened and they concluded that the risk to the team was high enough and EC's performance was low enough that they decided to move on from him...players with baggage take lots of extra work, can distract the team and unless he is a true superstar (which he isn't) you measure this risk and make a decision.  You may not need a full PI report or anything like this to get a feel for what is going to happen down the road so you cut your losses and move on.

we don't know the details - maybe other players do, can't really say at this point.
Logged
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 26973



« Reply #96 on: March 09, 2018, 03:03:42 PM »

I am sure the Bombers had a bit of insight into what may or may not have happened and they concluded that the risk to the team was high enough and EC's performance was low enough that they decided to move on from him...players with baggage take lots of extra work, can distract the team and unless he is a true superstar (which he isn't) you measure this risk and make a decision.  You may not need a full PI report or anything like this to get a feel for what is going to happen down the road so you cut your losses and move on.

we don't know the details - maybe other players do, can't really say at this point.

The issue is, they continued with him on the roster for 2 games and a playoff game before moving on from him...  just the implication of the incident is enough to not re-sign him, but how much evidence is needed to move on from a player mid season, who is a starter and who's contract is now guaranteed?
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
blue girl
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3191



« Reply #97 on: March 10, 2018, 03:03:16 AM »

The issue is, they continued with him on the roster for 2 games and a playoff game before moving on from him...  just the implication of the incident is enough to not re-sign him, but how much evidence is needed to move on from a player mid season, who is a starter and who's contract is now guaranteed?
I don't think that you can do anything until charges are actually filed. IMO the Bombers handled this correctly. It was the CFL that made the mistake by not saying anything once charges were filed.
Logged
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2703


« Reply #98 on: March 10, 2018, 06:39:21 AM »

There are a lot of factors concerning matters such as this that are going on behind the scenes that influence what ultimately happens. Just because someone is arrested it doesn't mean that they are guilty, or, that they will ever be fully prosecuted. An arrest happens when a prosecutor feels that they have enough evidence to take a case to trail. However, that is a fluid position up until it actually makes it to court. They may find out that witnesses were wrong, biological samples paint a different story, new information becomes available, etc., A person can be arrested and 18 months later the charges are dropped. This puts organizations such as the Bombers, the CFL, and other concerned parties at a disadvantage as they are a third parties to the proceedings and only have access to information that is either volunteered by the suspect or made public.  It's not always as simple as someone gets arrested and you pass out the apples and maps... 
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
Rhapsody in Blue
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8874



« Reply #99 on: March 10, 2018, 10:36:54 AM »

The issue is, they continued with him on the roster for 2 games and a playoff game before moving on from him...  just the implication of the incident is enough to not re-sign him, but how much evidence is needed to move on from a player mid season, who is a starter and who's contract is now guaranteed?

The incident happened in October. The Bombers weren't contacted by the VPD until November. The team did not continue to play him after they were notified.
Logged
Throw Long Bannatyne
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5503



« Reply #100 on: March 12, 2018, 12:40:52 AM »

The incident happened in October. The Bombers weren't contacted by the VPD until November. The team did not continue to play him after they were notified.

The WSF was played on Nov. 13 and Cummings played in that game and all games leading up to it.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2018, 12:50:14 AM by Throw Long Bannatyne » Logged
blue_gold_84
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 27801


Fort Hew


« Reply #101 on: March 12, 2018, 02:53:20 AM »

The WSF was played on Nov. 13 and Cummings played in that game and all games leading up to it.

And the Bombers were notified in November. The actual date isn't specified.
Logged

#forthew

#risetogether

You can't fix stupid.
Throw Long Bannatyne
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5503



« Reply #102 on: March 12, 2018, 12:37:47 PM »

And the Bombers were notified in November. The actual date isn't specified.

This is true, but Rhapsody in Blue seems to be implying that the Bombers held Cummings out of games, which is not accurate.  The incident may have played a role in them not re-signing him but his season long under-performance likely closed that door already.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2018, 01:08:43 PM by Throw Long Bannatyne » Logged
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 26973



« Reply #103 on: March 12, 2018, 05:00:11 PM »

This is true, but Rhapsody in Blue seems to be implying that the Bombers held Cummings out of games, which is not accurate.  The incident may have played a role in them not re-signing him but his season long under-performance likely closed that door already.

No, I'm pretty sure he meant that Cummings finished out the season before the team was notified.  From the point of notification, the team did not play him again, and walked from him in FA. 

There is a possibility that the team was notified prior to the WSF, and that they allowed him to play that game, but I kinda doubt it.
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
GCn18
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22460


« Reply #104 on: March 14, 2018, 04:37:02 PM »

No, I'm pretty sure he meant that Cummings finished out the season before the team was notified.  From the point of notification, the team did not play him again, and walked from him in FA. 

There is a possibility that the team was notified prior to the WSF, and that they allowed him to play that game, but I kinda doubt it.

It's entirely possible that the Bombers played him after the phone call from Vancouver police. The thing is that the Bombers would have had almost zero information about the incident or it's severity. The only reason that the Vancouver police likely called was to get information about the whereabouts of Cummings and to maybe get the Bombers assistance in getting contact with him. In a sexual assault case they would never reveal the details of what he was under investigation for.
Logged

Some people take this forum way too seriously.
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 7 [All]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!