Awful news, my condolences to his family.
https://www.riderville.com/2026/07/19/jayden-dalke-statement/
so sad RIP
Unbelievable tragedy
RIP. Condolences to his family and friends.
Car accident. Never good news. RIP
The Bombers and Riders are huge rivals but in times like these we come together in offering our heartfelt condolences. It is a reminder that football is just a game and life is what really matters.
Really sad news. RIP
Some details on the tragedy. A sad day.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/regina/article/dont-get-caught-up-in-social-media-comments-first-responders-share-details-into-crash-that-killed-roughrider-jayden-dalke/
I haven't read anything else on social media. Like any accident it makes me wonder what happened. Medical emergency, mechanical issue, distracted driver, road hazard / avoidance, weather / sun glare etc.
The person in the other vehicle also died. Multiple families experiencing loss.
Sask. Roughrider in fatal crash was driving on wrong side of divided highway: RCMP (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/fatal-crash-roughrider-jayden-dalke-bhishma-rajyaguru-9.7276759)
What a horrible tragedy.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on July 20, 2026, 06:40:38 PMSask. Roughrider in fatal crash was driving on wrong side of divided highway: RCMP (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/fatal-crash-roughrider-jayden-dalke-bhishma-rajyaguru-9.7276759)
What a horrible tragedy.
Crash happened at 3:30 AM, nothing good is going on at that time of the night.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on July 20, 2026, 08:16:48 PMCrash happened at 3:30 AM, nothing good is going on at that time of the night.
That bolded portion is neither here nor there but that time is not accurate.
From the article posted:
QuoteSaskatchewan RCMP sent a news release Monday morning saying officers responded to a crash Saturday night at 9 p.m. CST.
jamie nye is pretty accurate and he has some info
RCMP release some details of the crash that killed Jayden Dalke and a 22-year old Regina resident.
RCMP say a silver SUV driven by Dalke was travelling north in the southbound lane when the collision happened.
The RCMP also report alcohol and cannabis found in the silver SUV.
tough for the riders and cfl to navigate with this info out there.
Such an unfortunate accident, take care everyone during the holiday summer season, as just like that it can all be over.
Oops. Parents, teach your kids better than this. Totally avoidable. What a waste.
Devastating for the parents. And killing an innocent guy too... Horrible.
I want to spend a moment to commemorate the other victim as well, 22 year old Bhishma Rajyaguru of Regina.
(https://scontent.fyyc2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.99422-6/752497622_1030329233064550_2744239288568345312_n.png?stp=dst-jpg_tt6&cstp=mx1320x1297&ctp=p526x296&_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=127cfc&_nc_ohc=UleNOhi0ca4Q7kNvwH7G3un&_nc_oc=AdpU7M4uJVEPPS4xxdp0hSQN6AY-1kbqYOU8lwE9H8XN8Q8rhS4DWSQP0PQG0mEwl4s&_nc_zt=14&_nc_ht=scontent.fyyc2-1.fna&_nc_gid=zgQBcARHDQ3D5DEoFsD2Tg&_nc_ss=7b289&oh=00_AQAmkHAKUbt21i7pHZ70V4xCdjk5DV7WO71fBM0ICGr6-w&oe=6A6569BD)
From Bhishma's friend, who started a GoFundMe that has since closed at $77K to bring his body back to India.
QuoteBhishma came to Canada in April 2022 with big dreams and an even bigger heart. He was a deeply responsible son, an honest friend, and a truly talented, passionate musician who filled our lives with melody and joy. To know him was to know kindness, loyalty, and an infectious love for life. His future was incredibly bright, and his absence leaves a void that words simply cannot describe.
May Bhishma and his family, Jayden and his family, and others connected to these souls find peace from this tragedy.
DALKE is too blame, alcohol and drugs in his vehicle and more than likely in his system, gases his vehicle up in Lumsden then takes off without paying drives on the wrong side of the road and gets into a collision killing an innocent young man. Sorry I have no sympathy for Dalke who made the decision to do this. I wonder if he left a note explaining his reason. I have seen the same thing numerous times during my 28 year career as a Police Officer and have had to pull lifeless bodies from wrecks and pick up body parts from the highway because someone (Dalke) made the decision to drive impaired. It will take a couple of weeks for the RCMP to get the toxicology results from the autopsy of Dalke but I would bet the farm he was impaired.
Quote from: Horseman on July 21, 2026, 02:18:26 PMDALKE is too blame, alcohol and drugs in his vehicle and more than likely in his system, gases his vehicle up in Lumsden then takes off without paying drives on the wrong side of the road and gets into a collision killing an innocent young man. Sorry I have no sympathy for Dalke who made the decision to do this. I wonder if he left a note explaining his reason. I have seen the same thing numerous times during my 28 year career as a Police Officer and have had to pull lifeless bodies from wrecks and pick up body parts from the highway because someone (Dalke) made the decision to drive impaired. It will take a couple of weeks for the RCMP to get the toxicology results from the autopsy of Dalke but I would bet the farm he was impaired.
Thanks for your service to the community - that is a very difficult job, 28 years is amazing.
The RCMP investigation will now focus on the timeline of what Dalke was doing before the collision. They will speak to people who he interacted with that day and evening, what his actions were (Alcohol consumption, drug use) and his state of mind from comments/conversations Dalke had. Was he depressed and or suicidal, something was going on in his life that was an instigating factor for his actions. But, sometimes even with the investigation, no answers are discovered.
Quote from: Horseman on July 21, 2026, 02:18:26 PMDALKE is too blame, alcohol and drugs in his vehicle and more than likely in his system, gases his vehicle up in Lumsden then takes off without paying drives on the wrong side of the road and gets into a collision killing an innocent young man. Sorry I have no sympathy for Dalke who made the decision to do this. I wonder if he left a note explaining his reason. I have seen the same thing numerous times during my 28 year career as a Police Officer and have had to pull lifeless bodies from wrecks and pick up body parts from the highway because someone (Dalke) made the decision to drive impaired. It will take a couple of weeks for the RCMP to get the toxicology results from the autopsy of Dalke but I would bet the farm he was impaired.
I didn't think in this day and age you could get gas out of a gas pump without a card or paying inside first.
Quote from: bomb squad on July 21, 2026, 07:19:13 PMI didn't think in this day and age you could get gas out of a gas pump without a card or paying inside first.
Rural SSK...
This is going to be an difficult time for the CFL media people. They rapidly came out in sympathy, and as more information comes out, hard there to be any sympathy for this situation. In fact, it literally is the antithesis of the CFL / CFLPA stand on alcohol/drug policies, depending on how this plays out.
It is tragic any time a life is lost, and even more tragic when an innocent person pays the ultimate cost for someone else's bad decisions.
It's a tough one. I now think in hindsight the league would look better honoring the person killed by him. If substance abuse was an issue that's a disease and it's sad. I have had family and friends that have had those issues and sometimes people need help but what he did was so wrong and I am happy that someone else above brought light to the other victim and the go fund me. Really sad day that get more complicated and a lot of mixed emotions.
I got sober (booze) almost 10 years ago. I did it to show my family you could be sober. It wasn't easy but I will never go back.
Support your loved ones when they are in trouble. Help them get help. Sadly in many cases we can't help those that don't want it.
Mental illness might also have played a part. Most of us suffer from that in some form. Get help if you need it. I am her on PMs if people need to be pointed in the right direction.
Quote from: theaardvark on July 21, 2026, 07:28:48 PMRural SSK...
This is going to be an difficult time for the CFL media people. They rapidly came out in sympathy, and as more information comes out, hard there to be any sympathy for this situation. In fact, it literally is the antithesis of the CFL / CFLPA stand on alcohol/drug policies, depending on how this plays out.
It is tragic any time a life is lost, and even more tragic when an innocent person pays the ultimate cost for someone else's bad decisions.
I think you can still feel bad for Dalke's family. They lost their son too.
Obviously a tragic situation that seems to be 100% his fault. He took the life of an innocent victim by either drunk/high driving, or extremely reckless driving if he was sober. Murder regardless. Really horrible.
Just feel a little for Dalke's family as they had nothing to do with this but will receive a ton of hate online after just losing their son.
Quote from: LXTSN on July 21, 2026, 08:32:14 PMI think you can still feel bad for Dalke's family. They lost their son too.
Obviously a tragic situation that seems to be 100% his fault. He took the life of an innocent victim by either drunk/high driving, or extremely reckless driving if he was sober. Murder regardless. Really horrible.
Just feel a little for Dalke's family as they had nothing to do with this but will receive a ton of hate online after just losing their son.
You have to feel for everyone, family, friend, club, communities. Love trumps hate. Have to forgive. Takes time. The heart of this forum is on full display. Stay awesome everyone.
Quote from: Blueforlife on July 21, 2026, 08:14:53 PMIt's a tough one. I now think in hindsight the league would look better honoring the person killed by him.
It looks like the Riders have put out a statement on Facebook and the CFL PR followed suit by sharing the Riders' post.
The next step to go beyond being performative is to either educate or adjust their policies for the players, and/or advocacy in the area of mental health or substance use, depending on the discovery of circumstances.
from the riders:
We are profoundly saddened by the loss of 22-year-old Regina resident Bhishma Rajyaguru on Saturday.
In speaking with one of Bhishma's loved ones, he shared with us that he was a caring friend, a devoted son, a supportive brother, and someone who was always there for the people in his life. A gifted percussionist with a deep love of music, Bhishma's passion and presence left a lasting impression on everyone who had the privilege of knowing him.
Our hearts are with his family, friends, and all those mourning his loss. We also hold in our thoughts everyone who is supporting those affected during this incredibly difficult time.
We will honour Bhishma as part of our pregame ceremony on Thursday evening and are working with his family on the best way we can support them. We will share more information when it is available.
Good to see the Rough rider organization took the high road here. It is a tragedy for both family and friends and we need to be cautious and considerate in our comments here. Thanks.
Quote from: bomberjunkie on July 22, 2026, 01:47:41 AMThe next step to go beyond being performative is to either educate or adjust their policies for the players, and/or advocacy in the area of mental health or substance use, depending on the discovery of circumstances.
Ya, this isn't the first time something like this
could have happened in the CFL. I can recall 2 DUIs from CFL players off the top of my head. Probably more like 5 in the last 5-7 years. And now weed factoring in, where so many stoners swear it makes their driving better. It's really stupid. Should have been predicted before Trudeau legalized and mainstreamed it.
Maybe the CFL needs a tighter DUI policy. And players need to buddy up and make sure no one does anything stupid. Make it a team culture thing.
How about a stricter 6 game suspension for any DUI offense, and the team gets fined $5k
that comes off the SMS too. Make it hurt the whole team and maybe they'll get the correct programs in place.
I would assume there's 25-30% of players who are like Milt "body is my temple", who don't drink/toke at all. Promote that, and have them buddy up with the substance problem people.
The penalty makes sense.
Quote from: Tecno on July 22, 2026, 05:35:35 AMMaybe the CFL needs a tighter DUI policy. And players need to buddy up and make sure no one does anything stupid. Make it a team culture thing.
How about a stricter 6 game suspension for any DUI offense, and the team gets fined $5k that comes off the SMS too. Make it hurt the whole team and maybe they'll get the correct programs in place.
I would assume there's 25-30% of players who are like Milt "body is my temple", who don't drink/toke at all. Promote that, and have them buddy up with the substance problem people.
- I'd be OK with the stricter DUI penalty. There's no place for it anywhere.
- The buddy system wouldn't have worked in this case, as it was a bye week and you can't be restricting player's movement during that time. But I like the idea of integrating more team culture to combat it.
- Athletes are incredible lightweights when it comes to recreational drugs. There should be some education in the fact they need much less to get affected compared to a grown *** man with a pot belly.
Rules and penalties already exist and simply don't work. MADD has been fighting this fight for 50+ years. Everyone knows it's wrong to drink/drug and drive. It still happens every weekend.
Quote from: TBURGESS on July 22, 2026, 02:49:18 PMRules and penalties already exist and simply don't work. MADD has been fighting this fight for 50+ years. Everyone knows it's wrong to drink/drug and drive. It still happens every weekend.
What is the existing penalty for DUI arrests?
I've looked into this but I can't find it. It seems to be handled in a case to case basis.
So far I've found 3 other cases of DUI:
Kenny Lawler - 1 game suspension (team-imposed), and then after that he struggled to cross the boarder with the criminal record. Missed 6 weeks total.
Jake Dolegala - 1 game suspension (team-imposed)
Charleston Hughes - 1 game suspension
I personally don't think this is nearly enough. The NFL has a baseline suspension of 3-games and 8-games for a second offence.
In my personal opinion, I think 8 games should be the minimum. There should be zero tolerance for this.
DUI is one thing that should never be accepted or normalized. With rideshare programs, there is never a need to take this terrible risk.
The Cannabis Football League is famous for our tolerance of recreational THC use, and it not being a concern in random drug testing. And as it is legal now, that's fine.
But whether it is alcohol or THC, DUI is a serious issue. And the CFLPA and the league should make sure there are sufficient educational resources to make sure this kind of thing never happens.
Football players are human, and subject to the frailties that accompany that. We will never eliminate this. But we have to make sure it is not accepted or tolerated.
The previous cases where there were no injuries were dealt with far too leniently. Lawler, Hughes, Dolegala all could have ended the same as Dalke. I have no issue with 8 games or more for first infraction, and a lifetime ban for a second. Don't care whether its a PR player or an MVP.
The CFLPA should institute a tip line for team mates to report suspicious behaviour, so that the PA can reach out to potential problems before they happen, and offer support to prevent this from happening again.
These are young men, who feel literally invincible, who may have a decent amount of money and adoration, that gives them a bravado that makes them think they can get away with stuff. They have to be reminded that, if anything, they have a responsibility that comes with their job in the spotlight to be extra careful not to succumb to these temptations.
Quote from: LXTSN on July 22, 2026, 04:00:23 PMWhat is the existing penalty for DUI arrests?
I've looked into this but I can't find it. It seems to be handled in a case to case basis.
So far I've found 3 other cases of DUI:
Kenny Lawler - 1 game suspension (team-imposed), and then after that he struggled to cross the boarder with the criminal record. Missed 6 weeks total.
Jake Dolegala - 1 game suspension (team-imposed)
Charleston Hughes - 1 game suspension
I personally don't think this is nearly enough. The NFL has a baseline suspension of 3-games and 8-games for a second offence.
In my personal opinion, I think 8 games should be the minimum. There should be zero tolerance for this.
Penalties for a first-time impaired driving conviction under Canada's Criminal Code start with a mandatory $1,000 fine. Fines scale up based on blood alcohol concentration (BAC) (e.g., up to $2,000 for ≥ 0.160) and include a mandatory 1-year driving prohibition. Repeat offenses carry mandatory minimum jail terms (30 days for a second, 120 days for a third).
Key Criminal Code PenaltiesFirst Offense:
Mandatory $1,000 fine, 1-year driving prohibition, and a permanent criminal record.
Second Offense: Minimum 30 days in jail and a 2-year driving prohibition.
Third/Subsequent Offenses: Minimum 120 days in jail and a 3-year driving prohibition.
Bodily Harm: Maximum penalty of 14 years in prison.Death: Maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
Quote from: LXTSN on July 22, 2026, 04:00:23 PMWhat is the existing penalty for DUI arrests?
I've looked into this but I can't find it. It seems to be handled in a case to case basis.
So far I've found 3 other cases of DUI:
Kenny Lawler - 1 game suspension (team-imposed), and then after that he struggled to cross the boarder with the criminal record. Missed 6 weeks total.
Jake Dolegala - 1 game suspension (team-imposed)
Charleston Hughes - 1 game suspension
I personally don't think this is nearly enough. The NFL has a baseline suspension of 3-games and 8-games for a second offence.
In my personal opinion, I think 8 games should be the minimum. There should be zero tolerance for this.
Wouldn't surprise me at all if it's looked at now or after the season. Player conduct has got to be one of the biggest risks that both the league and PA would recognize as a threat to business/reputation. The commissioner could probably use this situation to get buy-in for more strict rules. It would be hard to argue against.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on July 22, 2026, 06:13:48 PMWouldn't surprise me at all if it's looked at now or after the season. Player conduct has got to be one of the biggest risks that both the league and PA would recognize as a threat to business/reputation. The commissioner could probably use this situation to get buy-in for more strict rules. It would be hard to argue against.
Totally agree and I really hope the CFL makes a point of this.
Bigger penalties don't change people's behavior. Neither does advertising. Never have. Never will.
Here's where you ask, "What can we do then?" and the answer is sadly nothing more than we are currently doing.
Suspending a player from playing would be a first good step, and something substantial like 3-5 games, but that will only be so effective. It comes down to the person making this a priority in amongst their off field activities, doesn't take much to get a designated driver, yet people don't and other let impaired people leave their place and drive. Its really sad it continues on to this day , but crap it does
Quote from: TBURGESS on July 22, 2026, 07:27:09 PMBigger penalties don't change people's behavior. Neither does advertising. Never have. Never will.
Here's where you ask, "What can we do then?" and the answer is sadly nothing more than we are currently doing.
I was coming at it from the perspective of risk mitigation for the pursuit of profit and the league and PA would be aligned on that. Obviously no one entity has a magic cure for human behaviour. Additionally, I'm sure they already have supports but alongside possible stricter rules would be additional or increased access to mental and substance supports. Even if they have the best plan and care in the world (I have no idea) an audit of those would probably be a good idea. Just because you can't totally mitigate down to zero doesn't mean it's not worth trying.
Quote from: TBURGESS on July 22, 2026, 07:27:09 PMBigger penalties don't change people's behavior. Neither does advertising. Never have. Never will.
Here's where you ask, "What can we do then?" and the answer is sadly nothing more than we are currently doing.
Education and awareness absolutely change people's behaviour. It's a never-ending process, but it's important to do.
Let's talk about civil law and who can be held responsible, for example:Yes, a bar can be sued for overserving a patron who then causes an injury crash through impaired driving. Under commercial host liability (often called dram shop law), drinking establishments owe a legal duty of care to the public to prevent customers from becoming overly intoxicated and driving.
Key Factors in Bar LiabilityVisible Intoxication:
Staff must have ignored clear signs of impairment (such as slurred speech, stumbling, or aggressive behavior) while continuing to serve drinks.
Legal Grounds for LiabilityDuty of care:
Commercial establishments make a profit from selling alcohol, meaning the law assigns them a duty to monitor consumption and prevent foreseeable harm to third parties on the road.
Overserving: Liability usually arises when staff continue to serve a patron who is visibly intoxicated or showing obvious signs of impairment.
Failing to intervene: Staff must take positive, reasonable steps to stop an intoxicated customer from driving, such as arranging a taxi, calling a rideshare, or confiscating keys.
Same can be said for someone having a house party where they let their guest leave intoxicated and drive impaired. They open themselves up to a civil lawsuit.
Quote from: TBURGESS on July 22, 2026, 07:27:09 PMBigger penalties don't change people's behavior. Neither does advertising. Never have. Never will.
Here's where you ask, "What can we do then?" and the answer is sadly nothing more than we are currently doing.
I agree that it's not likely to stop someone from making the decision initially, but punishments for actions are very important.
With a 1 game team issued suspension and a slap on the wrist, they are saying that this isn't really a big deal.
What can we do then? We can create a more severe punishment deterring repeat offenders and showing the rest of Canada that we take this seriously.
Quote from: Jesse on July 22, 2026, 08:36:49 PMEducation and awareness absolutely change people's behaviour. It's a never-ending process, but it's important to do.
Does it really, though?
The research disagrees with your opinion.
"Research indicates that education and awareness alone are generally insufficient to drive sustained behavior change, as knowledge does not automatically translate into action. Studies show that providing general information (such as the health risks of obesity or smoking) rarely alters habits because individuals often already possess this knowledge but lack the motivation, skills, or contextual support to act on it."Quite frankly, ads are just an expensive way of pretending to do something about problems without actually doing anything.
If punishments worked, then no one would commit murder knowing that they themselves could be put to death.
Quote from: Horseman on July 22, 2026, 09:07:36 PMLet's talk about civil law and who can be held responsible, for example:Yes, a bar can be sued for overserving a patron who then causes an injury crash through impaired driving. Under commercial host liability (often called dram shop law), drinking establishments owe a legal duty of care to the public to prevent customers from becoming overly intoxicated and driving.
Key Factors in Bar LiabilityVisible Intoxication:
Staff must have ignored clear signs of impairment (such as slurred speech, stumbling, or aggressive behavior) while continuing to serve drinks.
Legal Grounds for LiabilityDuty of care:
Commercial establishments make a profit from selling alcohol, meaning the law assigns them a duty to monitor consumption and prevent foreseeable harm to third parties on the road.
Overserving: Liability usually arises when staff continue to serve a patron who is visibly intoxicated or showing obvious signs of impairment.
Failing to intervene: Staff must take positive, reasonable steps to stop an intoxicated customer from driving, such as arranging a taxi, calling a rideshare, or confiscating keys.
Same can be said for someone having a house party where they let their guest leave intoxicated and drive impaired. They open themselves up to a civil lawsuit.
Assuming every drunk leaving a bar or party is falling down drunk and is not composed, what about the liquor store that sold him a full bottle of booze, did they advise him to moderate it's consumption??? First rule of common law should be taking responsibility for one's own actions, if anyone is getting sued it should be Dalke's estate.
Quote from: TBURGESS on July 22, 2026, 09:50:33 PMDoes it really, though?
The research disagrees with your opinion.
"Research indicates that education and awareness alone are generally insufficient to drive sustained behavior change, as knowledge does not automatically translate into action. Studies show that providing general information (such as the health risks of obesity or smoking) rarely alters habits because individuals often already possess this knowledge but lack the motivation, skills, or contextual support to act on it."
Quite frankly, ads are just an expensive way of pretending to do something about problems without actually doing anything.
If punishments worked, then no one would commit murder knowing that they themselves could be put to death.
Your definition of the word education as an "ad" is really shortchanging the definition, imo.
I'm speaking of education in a broader sense and people obviously do learn and grow, even though learned behaviours are tough to break. I don't really put overcoming a lifelong addiction like obesity and smoking in the same conversation as learning to call a cab when you've been drinking.
Quote from: TBURGESS on July 22, 2026, 07:27:09 PMBigger penalties don't change people's behavior. Neither does advertising. Never have. Never will.
Here's where you ask, "What can we do then?" and the answer is sadly nothing more than we are currently doing.
How do you explain the fact that DUI rates historically are falling?
"DUI rates are falling primarily due to the widespread availability of rideshare services, stricter traffic laws, and a cultural shift toward safer social drinking."
I'm 67
When I was in my late teens I drove home from parties drunk numerous times, as did friends. My sister lost 3 friends in her late teens due to an MVA where one of her friends was driving drunk.
The culture around drinking and the penalties for doing so, have changed enormously since then. My kids, in their early to mid 20's, wouldn't dream of doing that (or so they tell me lol, but I'm convinced it's genuine, they will arrange alternative transportation when they plan on drinking).
You're too nihilistic. Of course we won't eliminate DUI, but we can and should try to decrease it as much as possible.
Quote from: bunker on July 22, 2026, 10:30:57 PMHow do you explain the fact that DUI rates historically are falling?
"DUI rates are falling primarily due to the widespread availability of rideshare services, stricter traffic laws, and a cultural shift toward safer social drinking."
You explained it in the very next sentance.
The younger generation would rather Uber than have their own car which helps a ton too.
Quote from: Jesse on July 22, 2026, 10:17:36 PMYour definition of the word education as an "ad" is really shortchanging the definition, imo.
I'm speaking of education in a broader sense and people obviously do learn and grow, even though learned behaviours are tough to break. I don't really put overcoming a lifelong addiction like obesity and smoking in the same conversation as learning to call a cab when you've been drinking.
I was thinking specifically of MADD ads.
Education in schools has been happening for 50ish years too. It obviously didn't help in this situation.
Quote from: TBURGESS on July 22, 2026, 11:09:15 PMYou explained it in the very next sentance.
The younger generation would rather Uber than have their own car which helps a ton too.
I was thinking specifically of MADD ads.
Education in schools has been happening for 50ish years too. It obviously didn't help in this situation.
The thing people sometimes forget with public awareness campaigns or education in general is it isn't a zero sum game. There's a statistical percentage of the population that will never conform or change the behavior that you're trying to affect. Marketers usually try to identify those groups and not target them specifically if they can get gains elsewhere. In my experience, and this is the unfortunate part for drunk driving, that group is typically younger adult males 18-24. It's also important to remember you don't stay that age forever and those same people are statistically more likely to change as they age.
It doesn't mean that the entire premise doesn't work or is invalid or somehow not worth the effort.
We should continue to teach on the dangers of drunk driving. That is as important a message today as it was 50 years ago and the reason you don't hear or recognize when it works is because no one writes an article about a 21 year old guy who calls a friend, walks home or finds a ride. That absolutely does happen though, every day and education and awareness of actions and consequences are a part of the puzzle even if they aren't a silver bullet solution in a vacuum.
Quote from: TBURGESS on July 22, 2026, 11:09:15 PMYou explained it in the very next sentance.
The younger generation would rather Uber than have their own car which helps a ton too.
I was thinking specifically of MADD ads.
Education in schools has been happening for 50ish years too. It obviously didn't help in this situation.
A lot of this activity goes down in remote rural areas where no Uber or taxi service exists and there's an almost invisible police presence. Thus young men take the chance they'll get away with drinking and driving which becomes the accepted norm, and for the most part they do.
Rural Manitoba socials and bush parties were a breeding ground for this behaviour and I'd be surprised it's changed very much. The one benefit of higher liquor prices is it forces more people to buy their own and drink at home.
Quote from: Horseman on July 22, 2026, 09:07:36 PMSame can be said for someone having a house party where they let their guest leave intoxicated and drive impaired. They open themselves up to a civil lawsuit.
Never heard of that before, especially in "we don't really sue people" (or should that be "courts award you $50 instead of $25M like the USA") Canada.
You are not legally allowed to confine anyone (even drunk) to your home, nor forcibly take the keys from them if they don't want to give them up. Not even your spouse! Makes a situation where you need to become very difficult, or even a legal liability.
Quote from: TBURGESS on July 22, 2026, 07:27:09 PMBigger penalties don't change people's behavior. Neither does advertising. Never have. Never will.
Drunks always believe they are the best drivers and will be 100% fine and not get in accidents or weave in a way that will gets police attention. They literally don't see anything wrong nor any risk of anything at all. "I'm not like those other drunk drivers, I'm better." I've personally seen this a lot.
The thing that does work in a football environment is
peer pressure. Football is all about being great for your teammates. Peer pressure is massive... just think about WFC's FIFO. It's one big peer pressure system.
That's why I suggested there has to be something at the team level, and the peer level. The team needs to inform them about the massive team-hurting penalties for DUI, and the players themselves have to enforce it. It would work the same was as if a player showed up to the game after a bye 10lb heavier (except hoggies!) and tired/hungover. The whole team needs to come down hard on them, "not cool dude!".
In that sense, take my $5k on-SMS team fine idea and make it $50k on-SMS. That would seriously hurt a team and their GC ambitions. Make it so unacceptable and unthinkable to screw your team over so much. How about your 1RDP is forfeit, too.
That would have a knock-on effect of making teams vet players more strictly, and/or assign babysitters. Would Kenny get his big $$, for example? He could flub up and cost your team dearly.
Quote from: theaardvark on July 22, 2026, 06:09:26 PMThe CFLPA should institute a tip line for team mates to report suspicious behaviour, so that the PA can reach out to potential problems before they happen, and offer support to prevent this from happening again.
Useless. They would never report a teammate, even if he drives drunk every single night. For the same reason my "peer pressure" idea would work, this idea wouldn't: because of the "band of brothers" mentality. Rule #1 is you don't rat on your brother, even if it would have saved Dalke's life.
You really think anyone would rat on Kenny, or Davis Alexander, or your best hoggie? That could mean your team loses the next X games. No one is doing that.
So the only way someone would rat is if there is a similar team-level benefit to doing so. And that means losing Kenny or whoever for 6 games has to be LESS painful (by a large margin) than the punishment for getting caught. That might be hard to do, because the rat will also take into account the probability of getting caught is probably low.
I'm not sure you could equalize that value. And if you give the team/player actual
perks for rats, teams may arrange fake rattings. You wanted to cut a player? Have one of your players falsely report him for DUI risk. Boom: team/player gets a perk for losing a player they already wanted to anyhow.
Quote from: TBURGESS on July 22, 2026, 02:49:18 PMRules and penalties already exist and simply don't work. MADD has been fighting this fight for 50+ years. Everyone knows it's wrong to drink/drug and drive. It still happens every weekend.
No, I've found most people have no idea it's dangerous to toke and drive. Talk to any dedicated stoner and they instantly trot out the "stoners drive slower and are safer" crap and start whining about drinkers -- like it's some big cage match and you have to pick a side, when both shouldn't be driving.
They just laugh at the ads, which are actually pretty lame and minimize the real harm/risk -- some dude ordering the wrong stuff at the drive thru? Come on...
It may be a Canada-wide awakening if it turns out Dalke was high but not drunk...
Quote from: bunker on July 22, 2026, 10:30:57 PMWhen I was in my late teens I drove home from parties drunk numerous times, as did friends. My sister lost 3 friends in her late teens due to an MVA where one of her friends was driving drunk.
DUIs being less fatal is also a function of cars being miles safer than the 60's too. It often takes pathologically bad accidents like Dalke's head-on to cause a death these days. Doesn't excuse it in any manner, but it could skew the stats compared to the olden days.
Quote from: Tecno on July 23, 2026, 08:05:43 AMNever heard of that before, especially in "we don't really sue people" (or should that be "courts award you $50 instead of $25M like the USA") Canada.
You are not legally allowed to confine anyone (even drunk) to your home, nor forcibly take the keys from them if they don't want to give them up. Not even your spouse! Makes a situation where you need to become very difficult, or even a legal liability.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you can take away someone's keys to keep them from drunk driving without fear of prosecution.
Quote from: Tecno on July 23, 2026, 08:05:43 AMNever heard of that before, especially in "we don't really sue people" (or should that be "courts award you $50 instead of $25M like the USA") Canada.
You are not legally allowed to confine anyone (even drunk) to your home, nor forcibly take the keys from them if they don't want to give them up. Not even your spouse! Makes a situation where you need to become very difficult, or even a legal liability.
No, can't confine a person to your home but if they leave drunk and drive despite your best efforts to prevent that, then you have an obligation to call the police and report them for impaired driving. Remember "friends don't let friends drive drunk", how about when the people arrive at the house party you have them throw their car keys into a container and only get them back if they are sober at the end of the party. Otherwise they stay over or get an Uber, Taxi or have someone pick them up. DO you want to expose yourself to a potential civil lawsuit from the relatives of person your guest killed. Not me.
Quote from: Tecno on July 23, 2026, 08:22:03 AMUseless. They would never report a teammate, even if he drives drunk every single night. For the same reason my "peer pressure" idea would work, this idea wouldn't: because of the "band of brothers" mentality. Rule #1 is you don't rat on your brother, even if it would have saved Dalke's life.
You really think anyone would rat on Kenny, or Davis Alexander, or your best hoggie? That could mean your team loses the next X games. No one is doing that.
So the only way someone would rat is if there is a similar team-level benefit to doing so. And that means losing Kenny or whoever for 6 games has to be LESS painful (by a large margin) than the punishment for getting caught. That might be hard to do, because the rat will also take into account the probability of getting caught is probably low.
I'm not sure you could equalize that value. And if you give the team/player actual perks for rats, teams may arrange fake rattings. You wanted to cut a player? Have one of your players falsely report him for DUI risk. Boom: team/player gets a perk for losing a player they already wanted to anyhow.
An anonymous reporting system could save someone. Yes, it could be used for SWATing and fake reports, but those would have to be dealt with as well. I'd rather have to investigate 10 fake reports to identify one soul in need.
Quote from: Jesse on July 23, 2026, 12:54:30 PMI'm gonna go out on a limb and say you can take away someone's keys to keep them from drunk driving without fear of prosecution.
How about a beating from a football player?
Quote from: theaardvark on July 23, 2026, 05:58:49 PMAn anonymous reporting system could save someone. Yes, it could be used for SWATing and fake reports, but those would have to be dealt with as well. I'd rather have to investigate 10 fake reports to identify one soul in need.
I don't know what details have been confirmed but if he was coming back from Leduc he was probably partying with friends or family so doubtful any of his teammates knew what he was up to.
Problem is Leduc to Lumsden is at least 7.5 hours, doubtful he takes on a drive that long drunk or high without having to stop to rest, as driving long distance can be exhausting even when sober. Even if they found drugs and alcohol in his vehicle, kind of doubt he was intoxicated by the time of the accident unless he was topping up along the way.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on July 23, 2026, 06:38:43 PMI don't know what details have been confirmed but if he was coming back from Leduc he was probably partying with friends or family so doubtful any of his teammates knew what he was up to.
Problem is Leduc to Lumsden is at least 7.5 hours, doubtful he takes on a drive that long drunk or high without having to stop to rest, as driving long distance can be exhausting even when sober. Even if they found drugs and alcohol in his vehicle, kind of doubt he was intoxicated by the time of the accident unless he was topping up along the way.
If he wasn't intoxicated, how do you explain him stealing gas right before the incident and driving on the wrong side of the highway?
Everything is kind of pointing in one direction on this one.
Let the authorities do their work since there's a lot of details that need to be sorted out. They don't need internet sleuths muddling the truth.
Quote from: Jesse on July 23, 2026, 08:56:06 PMIf he wasn't intoxicated, how do you explain him stealing gas right before the incident and driving on the wrong side of the highway?
Everything is kind of pointing in one direction on this one.
No real explanation, but the realm of possibilities could include him being distracted by his phone and forgetting to pay for the gas rather than stealing it, I doubt he would want to face the consequences of being embarrassed by the entire province of Sask. for stealing gas as a member of the Riders.
Upon realizing his error he performed a u-turn and doubled back in the right hand lane not realizing it was a divided highway, apparently colliding with the other vehicle on the crest of a hill which is always a danger point. He was already well South of Lumsden so there had to be a reason he was headed North back towards town and there are some locations in Sask. where 4 lanes split and spread apart 1/2 a km or more, if at a distance a person may not see or comprehend the other 2 lanes are part of the same road.
Quote from: Jesse on July 23, 2026, 08:56:06 PMIf he wasn't intoxicated, how do you explain him stealing gas right before the incident and driving on the wrong side of the highway?
Everything is kind of pointing in one direction on this one.
Question, have you ever remained drunk for more than 8 hours at a time?
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on July 23, 2026, 10:11:06 PMQuestion, have you ever remained drunk for more than 8 hours at a time?
I don't drink at all, but I do know some people who remain drunk for
24 hours at a time! I'm not even kidding.
Quote from: Jesse on July 23, 2026, 08:56:06 PMIf he wasn't intoxicated, how do you explain him stealing gas right before the incident and driving on the wrong side of the highway?
Everything is kind of pointing in one direction on this one.
This is true, but the police report said booze & mj
in the vehicle. It is entirely conceivable they were both in the
trunk, which is
100% legal. Nothing yet proves he was intoxicated.
It's the stolen gas & wrong-way that hint at intoxicated -- because even if you think it's rural SSK and 0 people are out there, I'm thinking you don't do that. And even if you did, when you saw another guy approaching, you wouldn't try to re-reverse or drive off into a ditch to make sure you weren't hit??
Quote from: theaardvark on July 23, 2026, 05:58:49 PMAn anonymous reporting system could save someone. Yes, it could be used for SWATing and fake reports, but those would have to be dealt with as well. I'd rather have to investigate 10 fake reports to identify one soul in need.
My rat point still stands. Anonymous has nothing to do with it, and wouldn't help. They don't rat because they are a band of brothers, not because they are
pretending to be a band of brothers but would rat anonymously. The brotherhood is real. The "hurts the team" point also doesn't change. You won't rat out your highest value players, for example, even if you were a rare one who would rat out a STer.
Quote from: Horseman on July 23, 2026, 02:11:53 PMNo, can't confine a person to your home but if they leave drunk and drive despite your best efforts to prevent that, then you have an obligation to call the police and report them for impaired driving.
And how many times have you done that? Ya, never. You might say you'd do it. But you wouldn't if it was a close friend. Because then that person would no longer be your friend as they serve out a 1-year license suspension. Drunks do not ever ponder life and say "thanks for saving my life buddy" -- at least not until they go through a year of successful rehab.
Ya, ok, maybe if 50 people were at your house you'd call in on a nobody who your wife's work friend's cousin's boyfriend brought. But not a lifelong friend.
Now, if you try VERY HARD (verbally) to stop them, with witnesses, you've done your duty and you would almost certainly avoid any potential liability.
Quote from: Jesse on July 23, 2026, 12:54:30 PMI'm gonna go out on a limb and say you can take away someone's keys to keep them from drunk driving without fear of prosecution.
Maybe de facto, but not de jure. Look it up. Ask google or something. If said key-taking requires physical force (aka "assault" or "battery") and/or confinement (which is instantly "kidnapping" the moment you hold your door closed to them BTW) then you are committing a crime, and they can call the cops and have you arrested. Doesn't matter if they are drunk.
Now, would a lot of cops look away a bit and take your side? Maybe, maybe not. By law they aren't supposed to. And it's not in any way against the law for a drunk to hold their keys and walk through your door. The crime starts to materialize when they are approaching their vehicle with the intent to drive.
(And the reason this is so is because say a gf of a sleezebag is drunk, has her keys in her purse, is getting abused and tries to walk out the door to get help from the next door neighbour, with no intention of driving. If it was legal to stop a drunk from leaving, just because they were holding keys, then every abuser could confine ("kidnap") anyone they want and the abused would have zero recourse.)
I've personally fought a drunk for their keys before, a zillion years ago. Actual large amounts of strength doing wrestling type stuff trying to pry keys away, and holding doors closed. I could have gotten in big trouble for that. But I did it anyway as they were so drunk they wouldn't have even made it down my street. But should they have not liked it, and not passed out shortly thereafter, they could have called the cops. And it took maybe 66% of my strength to do it. I'm not overly weak. A 5'5" person instead of my 6'1, or weaker person may have lost that fight AND committed a crime. I wouldn't expect my wife to fight someone, for instance. If you think "force their keys away" is a simple "reach out and take it", you clearly have never been in this situation.
It's a really, really crappy situation and I hope no one ever goes through it, because your choices are fighting them and maybe getting in trouble, calling the cops and getting them arrested as they drive away and ruin their life, or letting them go and crash or die. These are horrible choices. What I would recommend to people is to either not hang out with drunks (sometimes difficult!), or to make sure every bad drunk comes over with their spouse/SO and that spouse is a DD or non-drinker. That's basically my rule now, because then there's never any issue.
P.S. The person I stopped is still a super close friend.
Quote from: bomberjunkie on July 23, 2026, 09:36:44 PMLet the authorities do their work since there's a lot of details that need to be sorted out. They don't need internet sleuths muddling the truth.
Yup. I regret commenting at all.
Maybe time to lock this thread...?
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on July 24, 2026, 02:15:39 PMMaybe time to lock this thread...?
I would agree with that.
Quote from: Tecno on July 24, 2026, 09:14:14 AMAnd how many times have you done that? Ya, never. You might say you'd do it. But you wouldn't if it was a close friend. Because then that person would no longer be your friend as they serve out a 1-year license suspension. Drunks do not ever ponder life and say "thanks for saving my life buddy" -- at least not until they go through a year of successful rehab.
Ya, ok, maybe if 50 people were at your house you'd call in on a nobody who your wife's work friend's cousin's boyfriend brought. But not a lifelong friend.
Now, if you try VERY HARD (verbally) to stop them, with witnesses, you've done your duty and you would almost certainly avoid any potential liability.
Yes, I would do it if I was not able to stop them from driving as I was in law enforcement for 28 years. How many dead bodies did you have to pull out of tangled vehicle collisions? How many body parts did you have to pick up off the highway, How much brain matter did you have to clean up as best you could? how many people have you had to go to their homes to tell them their loved one will not be coming home? So having had to do all that, YES, I would report a friend/guest for impaired driving. I would even physically stop someone from getting behind the wheel drunk as not only are you potentially saving that friends life but also an innocent person like the fellow Dalke killed or a family like I had to investigate, mother, father, two kids and the mother was pregnant. So, dealing with the carnage is enough to make me act to prevent someone from driving impaired and so it should for you **** the friendship if the person hates you after they weren't your friend to begin with, you can be comfortable knowing you did the right thing.
Quote from: Tecno on July 24, 2026, 09:32:12 AMMaybe de facto, but not de jure. Look it up. Ask google or something. If said key-taking requires physical force (aka "assault" or "battery") and/or confinement (which is instantly "kidnapping" the moment you hold your door closed to them BTW) then you are committing a crime, and they can call the cops and have you arrested. Doesn't matter if they are drunk.
They can call the police, but, once the entire circumstances are detailed and it is understood what happened, there is not a prosecutor who would prosecute you for attempting to stop a crime and or death occurring. In fact I as a former police officer would not even have laid an information (charge) against you.
Was wondering how SSK would handle the game "moment of silence" that would be pretty mandatory.
They first honoured the victim, with quite an elaborate presentation, naming all his relatives, before getting to Dalke... its hard to ignore the impact he has had on the team, and even though his final act was terrible and completely avoidable, can it invalidate all that came before? Was it a one time thing? If we find out in the investigation this is not the first incident, or if he'd been given a pass on earlier infractions due to him being a Rider, then were in a different ballpark.
But as the information stands today, about as best a handling of it as you could, well done Riders.
Quote from: bomberjunkie on July 23, 2026, 09:36:44 PMLet the authorities do their work since there's a lot of details that need to be sorted out. They don't need internet sleuths muddling the truth.
Very true.
Quote from: Tecno on July 24, 2026, 09:07:48 AMThis is true, but the police report said booze & mj in the vehicle. It is entirely conceivable they were both in the trunk, which is 100% legal. Nothing yet proves he was intoxicated.
It's the stolen gas & wrong-way that hint at intoxicated -- because even if you think it's rural SSK and 0 people are out there, I'm thinking you don't do that. And even if you did, when you saw another guy approaching, you wouldn't try to re-reverse or drive off into a ditch to make sure you weren't hit??
No trunk in a SUV or hatchback, as long as the booze hasn't been opened it shouldn't be a problem.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on July 24, 2026, 06:16:53 PMNo trunk in a SUV or hatchback, as long as the booze hasn't been opened it shouldn't be a problem.
The alcohol cannot be within easy reach of the driver/passenger.
Quote from: Horseman on July 24, 2026, 06:51:16 PMThe alcohol cannot be within easy reach of the driver/passenger.
Same thing applies to cannabis products.