Blue Bombers Forum
December 14, 2018, 07:56:22 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: CFL voids contract of Euclid Cummings  (Read 6355 times)
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 26980



« 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: 3289


« 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: 22488


« 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: 26980



« 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: 12144


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: 26980



« 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: 3192



« 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: 5506



« 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: 27804


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: 5506



« 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: 26980



« 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: 22488


« 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 ... 5 6 [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!