Argo QB, Chad Kelly sited in harassment/wrongful dismissal charges

[theaardvark]

Just curious, was there any "innocent until proven guilty" talk in the Jalen Saunders incident? 

Nope.

Immediately cut upon allegations being made.

Tillman accused, immediately put on admin leave.


And, do we need to revisit this news release?

https://www.cfl.ca/2015/08/06/cfl-announces-violence-against-women-policy/

[blue_gold_84]

Just curious, was there any "innocent until proven guilty" talk in the Jalen Saunders incident? 

Nope.

Immediately cut upon allegations being made.

Did the commissioner influence the decision with Saunders' release in 2022, though? From what I can tell, the answer is no. The WFC made its own determination in-house at the time to get rid of him.

And good on the them; good riddance to garbage. But the comparison ends there and the same cannot be said for the Argonauts organization or its owner MLSE. On the contrary, they've seemingly all doubled down and have continued to defend Kelly's innocence or not comment at all. Optically, they're digging themselves into a pretty deep hole and it's not a good look for an already beleaguered franchise.

I'm just not sure what power you seem to think the commissioner can wield in such a situation to try and sway the parties involved. The league itself launched its own investigation some time ago, which should be the least of its efforts, but I think its collective hands are tied otherwise under such circumstances.

[theaardvark]

The league had a commitment... from that news release I linked.

"• When any CFL workplace, including a CFL football club or one of its corporate offices, receives a report of violence against women involving a CFL employee, we will act.

• We will assess the situation and future risk to the women in question, and engage when necessary local experts who will make up violence against women response teams (VAWR teams). These VAWR teams will be made up of social workers and other professionals with extensive experience in dealing with violence against women."

[ModAdmin]

Pretty hard for the Argos to smooth this over and the longer the investigation takes the more it appears they are either trying to hope it disappears or they want to create an atmosphere that there is nothing to the story. It should not take this long to interview the affected parties and it has to have some effect on ticket sales as well.

[TecnoGenius]

The league had a commitment... from that news release I linked.

"• When any CFL workplace, including a CFL football club or one of its corporate offices, receives a report of violence against women involving a CFL employee, we will act.

Ya, but that whole policy is about violence.  No violence is alleged in the Kelly case.  If it was it'd automatically be criminal anyhow.  And no, I don't subscribe to the (bad) theory that words are violence.

But yes, the optics are really bad.  Part of the problem is lack of transparency, to go along with the potentially years-long pre-trial paper battle.  It's ugly if Kelly is totally guilty yet gets to play for 2 years scot-free.  If we had some insight into the facts each side is presenting during this process, maybe we could make more informed decisions and statements.

AFAIK there is no "gag order" on this stuff from the court, so the sides are free to say whatever they wish.  However, outlandish or false or defamatory claims could hurt a party in court.  It's usually best to clam up, and that's what they are doing.

The statements of claim are still public record, though, and someone in the jurisdiction (or with good net skillz) could possibly come up with the details!  Homework!  I'd love to see Kelly's side of the story.

We do have to consider the possibility, however remote, that the litigant is crazy, or malicious, or whatever.  Remember that baseball player?  If you wanted to get money out of a CFL player, picking Kelly is the smartest move, because most will be biased by his sordid history.  If that is clearly and provably the case, you really don't want to just pay out and take the L, because then you are inviting myriad copycats in the future.  That would cause the CFL gobs more grief.

[Waffler]

We do have to consider the possibility, however remote, that the litigant is crazy, or malicious, or whatever. 

This is called blaming the victim. The trainer worked for the Argos since 2018, they must have been happy enough to keep bringing her back. All we have have against the trainer is wild speculation, what we have against Kelly is evidence. example:

"On Nov. 10, 2023, [the coach] learned that Chad had made a threatening remark, suggesting she was fortunate he hadn't physically harmed her," the lawsuit says.

"Despite [her] supervisor witnessing parts of the incident and [the coach] reporting the ongoing harassment, the Argonauts failed to take any action to address the situation, leaving [her] in a distressing and unsupported position within the team."

Sure, keep an open mind if you want but blaming the victim is why more don't come forward.

[TBURGESS]

This is called blaming the victim. The trainer worked for the Argos since 2018, they must have been happy enough to keep bringing her back. All we have have against the trainer is wild speculation, what we have against Kelly is evidence. example:

"On Nov. 10, 2023, [the coach] learned that Chad had made a threatening remark, suggesting she was fortunate he hadn't physically harmed her," the lawsuit says.

"Despite [her] supervisor witnessing parts of the incident and [the coach] reporting the ongoing harassment, the Argonauts failed to take any action to address the situation, leaving [her] in a distressing and unsupported position within the team."

Sure, keep an open mind if you want but blaming the victim is why more don't come forward.

That's the claim. It hasn't been presented in a court under oath, so it's not evidence yet. 

[blue_gold_84]

Pretty heinous allegations all the same, IMO.

Kelly's history over the last decade doesn't help his cause, either.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

The one thing I'm curious about is whether these allegations against Kelly came out only after her contract was not renewed by the Argos.  Could be the case of a disgruntled worker disparaging a former employer in any way she could, which isn't that uncommon.  She was hired on a yearly renewable contract, so the Argos are not required to offer any explanation or reason for not renewing her contract, it's their prerogative.  Just because they renewed it multiple times before doesn't mean they have to continue that trend.

[blue_gold_84]

The one thing I'm curious about is whether these allegations against Kelly came out only after her contract was not renewed by the Argos.  Could be the case of a disgruntled worker disparaging a former employer in any way she could, which isn't that uncommon.  She was hired on a yearly renewable contract, so the Argos are not required to offer any explanation or reason for not renewing her contract, it's their prerogative.  Just because they renewed it multiple times before doesn't mean they have to continue that trend.

According to this article, she said she was informed on Jan. 29th that her contract wouldn't be renewed.

The timeline in the article makes it sound like she attempted to notify her superiors back in early November about the situation. However, nothing was done to address it, much less try and resolve it. Hardly surprising with John Murphy being involved.

This whole ugly thing seems to go well beyond simply being a case of a disgruntled and/or vindictive employee.

[theaardvark]

The one thing I'm curious about is whether these allegations against Kelly came out only after her contract was not renewed by the Argos.  Could be the case of a disgruntled worker disparaging a former employer in any way she could, which isn't that uncommon.  She was hired on a yearly renewable contract, so the Argos are not required to offer any explanation or reason for not renewing her contract, it's their prerogative.  Just because they renewed it multiple times before doesn't mean they have to continue that trend.

Very careful, such a suggestion can be seen as disparaging the victim.

No doubt, the non renewal of the contract may have something to do with going forward.  The complaint was made before she was informed she would not be renewed. One could also question whether her dismissal was done to cover the allegations up?

Was she willing to put it aside as "boys will be boys" while she was getting paid by the Argos?  I recall hearing that Kelly was segregated from her after the incident to prevent further incident. She had made a report of the issue, so I assume she was not accepting of the behaviour.  He has a history as well that makes the claim more credible, and if a superior witnessed part of the incident and no action had been taken before her dismissal, I'd be PO'd too.

[dd]

Pretty hard for the Argos to smooth this over and the longer the investigation takes the more it appears they are either trying to hope it disappears or they want to create an atmosphere that there is nothing to the story. It should not take this long interview the affected parties and it has to have some effect on ticket sales as well.

I don't think the Argos have ticket sales to affect!! I hear what you're saying though. In a smaller market like Winnipeg or Regina, where their fans have morals and values, they'd be fall out from this. But in the big smoke, sadly I doubt anyone knows or cares

[ModAdmin]

That's the claim. It hasn't been presented in a court under oath, so it's not evidence yet.

In a court of law, under oath, you are 100% correct.  The court of public opinion is different.  The longer this draws out with no comment or resolution, the worse it's going to get for the Argos and, perhaps, the league.  I have to believe, internally, the Argos have all the details they need to come to a decision.  The question is, what will be their strategy going forward.  And the pressure will continue to be on them the closer we get to the start of the 2024 season.

[Pete]

one could argue that the Argos have the information and have made a decision: that the charges are not substantiated, and they will contest them in the courts.
 I am curious however as to why none of his teammates, that I have heard , have come to his defense, which to me speaks volumnes.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

In a court of law, under oath, you are 100% correct.  The court of public opinion is different.  The longer this draws out with no comment or resolution, the worse it's going to get for the Argos and, perhaps, the league.  I have to believe, internally, the Argos have all the details they need to come to a decision.  The question is, what will be their strategy going forward.  And the pressure will continue to be on them the closer we get to the start of the 2024 season.

Only two options remain, either the Argos have the situation completely under control, or they're about to massively flub up just in time for the season to get rolling.  Hard to believe they wouldn't do everything to avoid the second scenario at this point.