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

[TecnoGenius]

They need to just cut him loose, like the Bronco's did, even though they were about to put him in after Keenum's 3-4 start.  Denver probably had worse issues at QB than the Argo's do, but they cut him...

Boy, you must have been stewing all night about this topic!  I don't blame you, I've been giving it a lot of thought also.  I don't reach the same conclusions as you, but the whole situation is super big as far as CFL "scandals" go, and we're seeing many unprecedented things occurring.

It's a garbage situation for everyone, all over basic stupidity.  What a poopshow.  I bet we all wish it never happened.  Well... except for the part about us getting a free bingo spot in week 8...   

[TecnoGenius]

Pinball claims he didn't know these altercations were even taking place, don't know how that could be possible, but nonetheless he's the specific person that should have been on top of this situation and thrown a bucket of water on it early.  He may not like having to deal with this mess, but it's his job to manage his football team.

He could be setting up Murphy as the scapegoat, to take the fall all alone.  Or he truly knew nothing, or was being protected.  Who knows.

[Blueforlife]

https://3downnation.com/2024/05/10/cflpa-files-appeal-for-access-to-complete-87-page-independent-investigation-report-into-chad-kelly/

[TecnoGenius]

I urge everyone interested to read (carefully) the TSN article link posted already:
https://www.tsn.ca/cfl/dave-naylor-independent-investigation-corroborates-three-of-six-allegations-against-chad-kelly-1.2118960

Kelly may be a DB, and definitely didn't act properly, but the general consensus on the gravity of what occurred appears to be overblown.  Even this article and the report are using contrived misdirections to get the emotional effect they want while the raw truth is obfuscated and brushed aside.

I'm in no way defending DB Kelly, but I am getting more annoyed at the extremely high penalty doled out and the way the allegations (and now "proof") against him are being misrepresented.  He's a mean-spirited "bad egg" with Manziel-Syndrome for sure.  But I have a severe dislike of the modern narrative-crafting so prevalent in our media and institutions.

Before you read the article or my diatribe, think about what you think in your mind, after reading all you have to date, that Kelly did.  Then read this new article and realize:

1. "According to the summary, investigators concluded Kelly did make persistent advances on the former coach, which constitute 'sexual harassment as defined by the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act.'"

This sleight of hand turns "persistent advances" into "sexual harassment", and then the entire rest of the article says nothing but "sexual harassment".  This is an appeal-to-emotion ploy because "sexual harassment" sounds so much scarier than "persistent advances".  I don't doubt the OOHSA does define the words as such, as that is the modern zeitgeist, but it's disingenuous to quietly equate them to start and then blast the emotionally-charged words "sexual harassment" over and over thereafter.

So the dude wouldn't take no for an answer.  He asked her out, asked her to come to his place, and (we're assuming she said no every time?) didn't stop.  Definite DB.  Definitely dumb in this day and age.  However, when you hear the words "sexual harassment" what first comes to mind?  Ya, probably worse than that.  Not an excuse, and not untrue (according to modern law), but realize the manipulation going on here.  I don't like media manipulation.

2. "Three other allegations investigated and documented in the report – that Kelly made public accusations about the former coach being involved with another Argonauts player, that Kelly threatened her, and that the quarterback was involved in the team's decision not to renew her contract – could not be corroborated by investigators."

So half of the allegations, including probably the most critical from a "Kelly bad" standpoint, verbal threats, could not be proven (no witnesses).  Thus we must assume the CFL didn't include them in the resulting punishment, and unless somehow proven in upcoming civil court trials, we must presume he is innocent of.

3. "The executive summary also supports two other allegations – that Kelly acted aggressively towards the former coach when confronted in the team breakfast room on the morning of Nov. 6, 2023, and that later that same day Kelly yelled derogatory words at the former coach."

So that's really one other incident, really, as they are "an hour later" as the article later states.  Someone gets you mad at breakfast and you're mad and moaning about it while eating then you get up and are still stewing, that's really one continuous incident in my books.  To me that changes the allegations from "3 of 6 proven" to "2 of 5" proven, which also doesn't look as good for the "Kelly bad" angle.

4. A major selling point of "Kelly bad" was the "bus thing", and it turns out that was BS and I think it actually makes the accuser look bad:

"On the allegation that Kelly made public accusations about the former coach being involved with a teammate on a team bus on Nov. 5, 2023, the report states the investigation found that 'while present and participating in the conversations, Kelly was reportedly not the source of the original comments.'"

So Kelly didn't even say the alleged comments, as proven by the investigators who clearly have multiple (bus) witnesses!  So strike another accusation off the list that Kelly never committed.

So now I have a question: if Kelly was to be (partially) ruined for that (1 of 6) allegations -- the "she's dating a team mate" -- then does the player who really said it now get investigated by the CFL and get suspensions?  If not, why not?  This is very important.  If it's bad when Kelly supposedly does it, then it's bad when any player does it.

But it gets worse:

"The morning after the conversation on the bus, the former coach confronted Kelly at the team breakfast area at BMO Field over what she heard he'd said on the bus the previous day."

She went to Kelly and accused him of something he didn't do, in public!  I'd be very angry myself if anyone (no matter who) started leveling untrue accusations at me.  This is a critical point the article is just glossing over.  And why did she go "confront" someone she was allegedly afraid of, who she was trying to dodge, and who admittedly made her feel intimidated?  Who does that?  Why didn't she go straight to her boss or Pinball right at that point?  It makes no sense given the narrative.

And whether the resulting exchange went like Kelly going into a "rage, throwing his plate down and screaming at her", or "he left the scene, feeling attacked and accused of something 'he did not do or say,'" becomes much less important.  If you falsely accuse someone then you should expect confrontation.  Tossing your breakfast to the floor and yelling is probably not the best idea, but if we heard this story but instead it was about Kelly vs Dukes, no one would bat an eye.  I don't like double standards.

"The investigators were not able to talk to any witnesses to that event but concluded that harassment took place."  "This exchange – shouting, swearing and making aggressive gestures..."

What if Kelly is right and she was yelling first?  Is that harassment of Kelly?  No witnesses, so "he said she said" so I have no idea how they justify the above, especially knowing that the accusation was false in the first place!  Or is the standard such that you must sit there and take it while someone else levels known-false accusations and (allegedly) yells at you after initiating the confrontation?  I guess Kelly "loses" because he can shout louder and looks more physically intimidating?

5. "Witnesses were interviewed in relation to another incident an hour later that same day, when Kelly allegedly yelled derogatory words at the former coach and stated that he could not wait until she was fired."

"Usama Mujtaba, who was sitting at the same table as the former coach, told investigators he remembered that Kelly looked at them and said, 'that b---h is no good at her job.'"

"Another Argos player, who was sitting two or three tables away having breakfast by himself, told investigators he remembered Kelly saying to Mujtaba 'f--k that b---h,' and then saying something about her being fired on his way out of the room."

Think about how these allegations were framed prior to this release: that Kelly was saying stuff like this to her face.  In fact, they are still framed that way in the article.  There is zero mention of finding of fact that Kelly ever said "bad words" directly to the accuser.  You can bet that if the investigators found such and instance it would have been front and center in the report.

So Kelly said dumb and "mean" things to his locker room pals.  Uh, does anyone know what kind of smack talk goes on in locker rooms?  It isn't rated G and it's not safe for toddlers.  Do you know how often a bunch of guys together are talking about ladies?  It's not always sugar and spice.  I'm not saying it's good or right, but it just is.  Are they going to suspend any player that says the B word about a lady in a locker room going forward?  The precedent is set.  Good luck with that.

6. "'Shouting, swearing and making demeaning comments toward [the former coach] constitutes harassment,' the summary reads. 'The allegation is supported.'"

Define "toward".  Are they conflating the breakfast incident with this one-hour-later one?  To me "toward" means "in the presence of and aimed at".  But I guess they could mean "pertaining to".  It would be nice to have this clarified.  So I guess any player saying a swear or other "demeaning comments" about any woman at any time even if they are miles away is defined as "harassment" under these rules and the player is subject to suspension?  Again, good luck with that.

7. "On the allegation of Kelly making threats toward the former coach, the summary says that in the week leading up to the East Division Final on Nov. 11, an Argonauts player told [the former coach] that a teammate had told him that Kelly had said, "That b---h is lucky I didn't hit her.'"

"'Kelly denied making any such comment. Attempts were made to interview [the player who allegedly heard the comment]; however, he refused to participate in the investigation,' the summary states."

That's textbook hearsay and completely useless legally.  Worse, even if 100% true, the allegation is Kelly made the threat to a 3rd party, not to the accuser!  And the statement is not even a direct threat, which is clearly defined by law.  Maybe a veiled threat, but that's not illegal.  Again, think about what your mind thought of when you first heard "made threats".  It wasn't this.  I'm not excusing it, it's not proper workplace behavior, but it's not what we all thought it was.

8. "The former coach filed an amended lawsuit on April 2 in Ontario Superior Court in Toronto. [...]She is seeking $80,000 from Kelly and a total of $85,714 from the Argonauts."

Very interesting.  Assuming the $400k number we initially heard she was asking of the Argos was correct, she has amended her suit and reduced the Argos ask to a measly $86k?  Why?  If she had asked for that initially, maybe they would have just paid her off and NDA'd the entire debacle and saved the whole world the trouble.


In sum, to me it doesn't add up to 9 games as it's nowhere near as "bad sounding" as the initial reports and forum posts (on 3 different forums) made it out to be.  Basically, he made advances and was rejected but persisted, and he complained to his friends about it with bad words, and he got angry when she (proven) falsely accused him.  That it's.  That's all.  That's worth 9 games?

The first point clearly (well, usually) requires a male/female dynamic, but the second and third can be between any pair of players or coaches.  My question is: will similar male/male scenarios be treated the same way: with multi-game suspensions?

Finally, if we look at the count of proven allegations -- 3 (or I say 2) -- the suspension math works out to either 3 games per count, or 4.5 games per count.  So 3 or 4.5 game suspension going forward for any player making persistent advances at a colleague.  And 3 or 4.5 games suspension going forward for any player saying bad words behind a colleague's back or tossing a plate and yelling.  If that's the new standard, I want it equally applied across the board!  Welcome to the new CFL.

[TecnoGenius]

https://3downnation.com/2024/05/10/cflpa-files-appeal-for-access-to-complete-87-page-independent-investigation-report-into-chad-kelly/

Ya, I should hope so after what I just ranted about.

On a much lighter note, I find it hilarious the PI firm is "Saskatchewan-based firm Buckingham Security Services Ltd".  I can't really picture mysterious, trenchcoat-clad, magnifying-glass-toting types coming from Sask.  I guess business investigating crop circles and cow tipping was slow this time of year?

Then again, it could all make sense if the PIs were massive Greenies, as all Saskies are, eh?  1 team down, 7 to go!             

[Blueforlife]

Techno I don't agree with much of what you said here.  It's clear he did some nasty stuff, wouldn't be suspended this long if that wasn't the case.  Your take is off base imo.  We will never know the truth but sounds like we don't need to know the exact situation to pass some serious judgment about Kelly, Argos management and the CFL for taking so long on this.

[TecnoGenius]

This new information also shines light on the bad-sounding statement from Murphy (I think).  I can't find the quote right at the moment, but it's in the record somewhere on the forum(s).  Murphy allegedly told the accuser something like "you should have brought it to me first".

When I first heard that, I thought, like I bet many did, that he was trying to do a "cover up".  As in, "I'm sorry you went to the lawyers instead of coming to me so I could cover it all up".

But, what if, instead, he said that after she came to him about being yelled at by Kelly at breakfast?  The new information says she initiated a confrontation with Kelly about the bus talk.  What if Murphy's comment was about that?  As in: "you should have come to me to deal with the douche instead of trying to confront him yourself".

This would actually be the correct course of action and the correct advice from Murphy.  Whether this theory is correct would depend on exactly when the statement was made.  If it was well after the legal action was initiated, then I'm wrong.  But if it was her first talk with Murphy regarding the breakfast fracas then it changes everything.

I'm starting to get whiffs of careful narrative crafting, and selective and well-timed releases of information designed to inflict maximum damage on Kelly/Argos in the public eye.  Not positive yet, but the whole thing is starting to smell.

If so, then the question becomes "why?".  Normally the league does everything possible to pander to TOR/MLSE.  Why would they go the extra mile to destroy them?  It really makes no sense.  They could have given Kelly 3-4 games plus all the conditions and most punters would have been satisfied.  Why the extreme result?  What's the real motive?

[Sir Blue and Gold]

I urge everyone interested to read (carefully) the TSN article link posted already:
https://www.tsn.ca/cfl/dave-naylor-independent-investigation-corroborates-three-of-six-allegations-against-chad-kelly-1.2118960

Kelly may be a DB, and definitely didn't act properly, but the general consensus on the gravity of what occurred appears to be overblown.  Even this article and the report are using contrived misdirections to get the emotional effect they want while the raw truth is obfuscated and brushed aside.

I'm in no way defending DB Kelly, but I am getting more annoyed at the extremely high penalty doled out and the way the allegations (and now "proof") against him are being misrepresented.  He's a mean-spirited "bad egg" with Manziel-Syndrome for sure.  But I have a severe dislike of the modern narrative-crafting so prevalent in our media and institutions.

Before you read the article or my diatribe, think about what you think in your mind, after reading all you have to date, that Kelly did.  Then read this new article and realize:

1. "According to the summary, investigators concluded Kelly did make persistent advances on the former coach, which constitute 'sexual harassment as defined by the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act.'"

This sleight of hand turns "persistent advances" into "sexual harassment", and then the entire rest of the article says nothing but "sexual harassment".  This is an appeal-to-emotion ploy because "sexual harassment" sounds so much scarier than "persistent advances". 

Techno, I started reading and stopped here. I am certainly not a legal expert (and I surmise you aren't either) but what this is saying is that his actions constitute sexual harassment as defined by a law in Ontario (the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act, which I googled) and was passed in 1990. It's not new. These have been the laws of the land even before the so called keyboard warriors declared war on the "woke agenda" which is how you post veers. Sexual harassment takes many forms and this is one of them and seemingly has been for the last 34 years where Kelly committed the acts.

Your midnight deep dive also assumes many things that may or may not be true. For example you suggest that: "So half of the allegations, including probably the most critical from a "Kelly bad" standpoint, verbal threats, could not be proven (no witnesses).  Thus we must assume the CFL didn't include them in the resulting punishment, and unless somehow proven in upcoming civil court trials, we must presume he is innocent of."

It is you that should stop assuming things. What is the burden of proof in this process? Is it the balance of probabilities like civil court, it is beyond a reasonable doubt like criminal court, or something else? I don't know. You obviously don't know. But if it is lesser, than yes, it's probably within reason to determine he did those things even if the level of proof isn't satisfactory to you, personally.

[Jesse]

This new information also shines light on the bad-sounding statement from Murphy (I think).  I can't find the quote right at the moment, but it's in the record somewhere on the forum(s).  Murphy allegedly told the accuser something like "you should have brought it to me first".

When I first heard that, I thought, like I bet many did, that he was trying to do a "cover up".  As in, "I'm sorry you went to the lawyers instead of coming to me so I could cover it all up".

But, what if, instead, he said that after she came to him about being yelled at by Kelly at breakfast?  The new information says she initiated a confrontation with Kelly about the bus talk.  What if Murphy's comment was about that?  As in: "you should have come to me to deal with the douche instead of trying to confront him yourself".

This would actually be the correct course of action and the correct advice from Murphy.  Whether this theory is correct would depend on exactly when the statement was made.  If it was well after the legal action was initiated, then I'm wrong.  But if it was her first talk with Murphy regarding the breakfast fracas then it changes everything.

I'm starting to get whiffs of careful narrative crafting, and selective and well-timed releases of information designed to inflict maximum damage on Kelly/Argos in the public eye.  Not positive yet, but the whole thing is starting to smell.

If so, then the question becomes "why?".  Normally the league does everything possible to pander to TOR/MLSE.  Why would they go the extra mile to destroy them?  It really makes no sense.  They could have given Kelly 3-4 games plus all the conditions and most punters would have been satisfied.  Why the extreme result?  What's the real motive?

I'm not sure what you were reading or assumptions you were making before this report came out. This confirmed exactly what we were told happened. It also admitted that a couple offences were unable to be confirmed because witnesses either weren't able to be contacted or refused to cooperate.

[theaardvark]

If this was a DI WR or a Nat ST player, he would have been gone day one.  The initial complain probably is enough, and she still has her job, and no black eye for Pinball or the league.

The facts are, it happened, and the Argos chose their top player over his victim, and did their best to cover it up and sweep it under the rug.

I really don't think Pinball knew, but he should have.  Yes, it is possible to do all these things without the boss finding out, but not if he is involved and conscious of what is going on at all levels.

That said, a CEO always surrounds himself with people he can trust and rely upon.  In this case, it looks like Pinball made some bad decisions on that level of his staff.  And the incident and subsequent cover up was contained below him.

But, as he said in his presser, he's responsible, and if his actions allowed this to happen, its on him.

His big mistake, as far as I am concerned, is allowing Kelly anywhere near the team until the minimum of having mea culpa'd and completed his mandated training.

Kelly is too arrogant to ever apologize on his own, and I'd be surprised if he completes his courses.  He will appeal.  It will cost the league legal fees, and an even bigger black eye.

We are already seeing people saying they will protest games that he is in the stadium for, even if he isn't dressed.  In a gate driven league, that has been building a more diverse fan base, the last thing you need is a group of protesters picketing your games.

He's just a player, who may have a good arm but is not a good person.  The CFL needs good people.  He's bad for the league, he's already taken Pinball out with his actions.  How much more damage should he be allowed to cause.

[theaardvark]

This is not a criminal case, where "beyond a reasonable doubt" comes into play.  This is a civil and contract case, and there is clearly more than enough evidence to suspend him, and the league has left the Argos with the task of dealing with him.

The fact he was allowed into the practice was dumb.  World class dumb.  No upside for anyone, and now the Argos are complicit.  And Kelly is thumbing his nose at the women who work in and support the league. 

This is going to get a lot worse, to the point where cutting him will be the only option, and even that won't fix the Argo's horrible PR problem.

[Horseman]

Sorry Techno, but repeatedly pursuing the female coach to go out with him or to go over to his place after she has repeatedly rejected his offers IS sexual harassment, period.

[theaardvark]

Sorry Techno, but repeatedly pursuing the female coach to go out with him or to go over to his place after she has repeatedly rejected his offers IS sexual harassment, period.

It is, and it is exponentially increased when it is done by someone in power over you. 

That's the Weinstein effect.  The star player on the team is harassing you, you report it with no relief, and then get "fired".

This is why he needs to take re-training on how to act in polite society, and that there is no difference if it is in a 5 star dining establishment or a locker room.  Respect is respect.

Apology, successful completion of courses, expressed remorse.  Or cut.  In my eyes, only two options.  And the later is the only sure way to prevent it again (he is NOT a first time offender)

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

It is, and it is exponentially increased when it is done by someone in power over you. 

That's the Weinstein effect.  The star player on the team is harassing you, you report it with no relief, and then get "fired".

This is why he needs to take re-training on how to act in polite society, and that there is no difference if it is in a 5 star dining establishment or a locker room.  Respect is respect.

Apology, successful completion of courses, expressed remorse.  Or cut.  In my eyes, only two options.  And the later is the only sure way to prevent it again (he is NOT a first time offender)

Factually not true, contract expired not renewed.

[Lincoln Locomotive]

The argument Techno makes is riddled with assumptions.   Kelly is a bad egg and deserves the suspension and more.   Coach O'shea made some interesting comments about how we should be considering how women who work in the league feel about Kelly's behaviour. 

Also, Milt Stegall feels he deserves a full suspension and I don't always agree with his take on things, however on this one I do.   Kelly is not bigger than the CFL and needs to suffer the consequences as a result of his entitled white male misogyny.....there is no justification or defence for his conduct.

The Argos as an organization need to "do better"

https://winnipegsun.com/sports/be-better-cfl-bombers-staff-call-out-handling-of-chad-kelly-affair