[Report] Varlamov turns himself in to police

[viking mama]

I expected more out of you. Where is the conspiracy tie-in to Jeremy Jacobs and Gary Bettman in all this drivel above?

^ This is trolling...& bad form.

[viking mama]

The truth does not lie somewhere between his story and her story if either is lying. That is a cliche you saw in a movie.

The truth is until there is a conviction, the man is innocent. That is how the law wors by design. An assumption of guilt is the old way; the Salem witch trials are an example of why assuming guilt based solely on accusation is not only dangerous but downright vile.

If and when it is discovered there was some kind of criminal activity, you can be as sanctimoneous as you like. Until then, if you continue this line of reasoning, you are the problem; the reason the rule was made. How does that feel?

I dont care if his behavior is considered criminal or not. But - morally & ethically, I believe this dude owes this woman some sincere apologies for unsupportable behaviors. And - we should expect, at some point, to hear where he stands on the 'domestic violence" issue in question. Is he grateful & supportive of the policies in the NHL on this issue ...or against 'em? That's what I really want to know. What's his mind set on the topic? Why should this remain a mystery?

[BeefcakeBo]

I dont care if his behavior is considered criminal or not. But - morally & ethically, I believe this dude owes this woman some sincere apologies for unsupportable behaviors. And - we should expect, at some point, to hear where he stands on the 'domestic violence" issue in question. Is he grateful & supportive of the policies in the NHL on this issue ...or against 'em? That's what I really want to know. What's his mind set on the topic? Why should this remain a mystery?

None of this matters until he is proven to have done anything wrong. I'm not going to lie, women beaters are some of the biggest pos' people on this earth but this guy is innocent until proven guilty. If he is guilty then I hope he has his career ruined, but he doesn't deserve to be slandered until he actually is proven to have physically abused his girlfriend. He doesn't owe you or anyone else anything before that.

[viking mama]

None of this matters until he is proven to have done anything wrong. I'm not going to lie, women beaters are some of the biggest pos' people on this earth but this guy is innocent until proven guilty. If he is guilty then I hope he has his career ruined, but he doesn't deserve to be slandered until he actually is proven to have physically abused his girlfriend. He doesn't owe you or anyone else anything before that.

I see NO harm in stating one's support for the policies in the NHL & demonstrating a caring attitude toward abused women,.. IF one is innocent of all allegations. The criminal proceedings with Varlamov are not going forward, due to the very high standards of evidence & proof. It's a civil suit now. His silence is damning & uncaring about the seriousness of the issue, if you ask me. And as an NHL-hockey fan, ...he's diminished the values of the league with that silence. My opinion.... talk straight & answer the tough questions...or people will simply speculate about them, as we do.

This guy Varlamov, (not Voyonov who IS now being investigated) has been resting in his silence on the wrong-side of this issue for awhile now. What I see - is that same old, same-old, little will change attitude, for little has been learned. He could be a better man & share this life lesson. Choosing not too is fine,.. but as a role-model, he risks steering people - wrong. No biggie,..I guess I'm just expecting too much from someone of questionable humility. Its a tall order - but there are far better men out there who would take the time to state such things for the record.

[BeefcakeBo]

I see NO harm in stating one's support for the policies in the NHL & demonstrating a caring attitude toward abused women,.. IF one is innocent of all allegations. The criminal proceedings with Varlamov are not going forward, due to the very high standards of evidence & proof. It's a civil suit now. His silence is damning & uncaring about the seriousness of the issue, if you ask me. And as an NHL-hockey fan, ...he's diminished the values of the league with that silence. My opinion.... talk straight & answer the tough questions...or people will simply speculate about them, as we do.

This guy Varlamov, (not Voyonov who IS now being investigated) has been resting in his silence on the wrong-side of this issue for awhile now. What I see - is that same old, same-old, little will change attitude, for little has been learned. He could be a better man & share this life lesson. Choosing not too is fine,.. but as a role-model, he risks steering people - wrong. No biggie,..I guess I'm just expecting too much from someone of questionable humility. Its a tall order - but there are far better men out there who would take the time to state such things for the record.

The problem is that no one is asking you. Also he does not have to make any kind of public statement to prove his innocence through other means. Obviously you have already decided he is guilty. He may be, but no one has proved that yet.

Heck, so far all there is to go off of is one woman's claims against him. It's as valid as if I claim that you assaulted me yesterday. No one here can know if I'm lying or not, doesn't mean you better make a public statement against violence though.

You should wait until the judge decides what's been done and what hasn't before you start deciding how someone else should live their life.

[viking mama]

The problem is that no one is asking you. Also he does not have to make any kind of public statement to prove his innocence through other means. Obviously you have already decided he is guilty. He may be, but no one has proved that yet.

Heck, so far all there is to go off of is one woman's claims against him. It's as valid as if I claim that you assaulted me yesterday. No one here can know if I'm lying or not, doesn't mean you better make a public statement against violence though.

You should wait until the judge decides what's been done and what hasn't before you start deciding how someone else should live their life.

Read up! On that one event - no direct witnesses. On prior events she has witnesses. That might lend a little bit of extra cred to a circumstancial civil case. This isnt complete hogwash...or the lawyers wouldnt touch it. Get off of the criminally innocent or guilty angle. That's not the consideration now. Did this man assault this woman,.. ever? And what should anything be done about that,... to send a punitive message for the unacceptable behavior that's been alleged. Should a penalty or an offer of restitution be made to either party as victims. That's the point now.

I'm offering my opinion on how he is being perceived publicly...& why. Then I'm offering-up some suggestions on how I feel that he might be able to repair these perceptions. It's PR. Some professionals actually care about that. I don't get why you continue to take offence. But - I'm me,..you're you. We're apparently at an impasse. You don't think he should care about such things, at all. I think he should be caring about PR, a little bit more.

[Fox Mulder]

What I find interesting, or should I say sad, is how many people are sticking up for men accused of crimes (not just in this thread...), telling everyone that they should not assume his guilt or tarnish his reputations but have no such concern for the women making the allegations. In fact, many people in this thread have said it just can't be true, or that even if it is it could be her faultW, or that she's just a liar looking for a quick buck. (You know, because this has been a quick and easy process...) Where is the outrage when people assume the worst of her? Where is the outrage at blaming and disparaging someone who may be a victim?

It's hard at the best of times, and such emotionally charged issues about which almost all of us have our own biases are hardly the best of times, but we all have to try to find a middle ground where we don't believe or disbelieve either of the people involved because we don't know who is telling the truth, or more accurately who's story most closely resembles the truth. Assuming she's a gold digging liar is not any better than assuming he's a wife beater.

If it was the other way around and she was the one accused of hitting him then I would be making the assumption that maybe he is a gold digger. Gender has nothing to do with it. If you're wrong you're wrong. You just don't hear a lot about domestic violence if it's the woman who is the guilty party. I don't support domestic violence of any kind, by either party. It is wrong to assume somebody is guilty of a crime without any proven facts regardless of their gender.

I would be just as 'outraged' if it was the other way around.

[Fox Mulder]

I'm an anti women hitter and my personal bias makes me want to side with her.

Doesn't matter if he is "Joe Schmo", a hockey player, or the president - you just don't hit girls.

It has nothing to do with "scandals".

I agree with you on that. You should never hit a woman. Or anyone for that matter. However in this day and age people seem to be obsessed with celebrities. Whether they are actors, athletes, etc. There are so many people on the Internet looking for gossip and juicy tabloid stories so they have something to bitch about. They want something to latch onto and try to bring somebody down. Jealousy? I'm not sure.

To quote the green goblin in the original spider man, "The only thing people love more than a hero is to see a hero fall."

[poetica]

If it was the other way around and she was the one accused of hitting him then I would be making the assumption that maybe he is a gold digger. Gender has nothing to do with it. If you're wrong you're wrong. You just don't hear a lot about domestic violence if it's the woman who is the guilty party. I don't support domestic violence of any kind, by either party. It is wrong to assume somebody is guilty of a crime without any proven facts regardless of their gender.

If you believe it's wrong to assume someone is guilty of a crime, then why are you doing just that? If you are "making the assumption that maybe he is a gold digger" of anyone accusing someone of domestic violence, you are assuming they are guilty of lying to the police and/or courts. Those are crimes. Worse still, assuming that anyone accusing someone of domestic violence is lying is incredibly dangerous. It's attitudes like that that encourage people to stay in abusive relationships and to not go to the cops even when they fear for their safety for very real reasons.

You should remember the distinction between legal guilt and the truth. The goal of the justice system is to line the two up, but that doesn't always happen. There are millions of people who are never even accused of crimes they actually committed. There are many more who are acquitted of crimes they actually committed. And, there are, sadly, some who are convicted (and therefore legally guilty) of crimes they did not commit. The criminal justice system is designed to find the truth, but it has many holes and flaws that we are (hopefully!) still trying to address as a society. As such, criminal outcomes cannot be viewed as an absolute reflection of reality. Making that mistake leads to innocent people being left to rot in prison or guilty people walking away free of any consequences.

We have a civil court because we know that not all things can be resolved by the criminal court. Just as OJ was found legally not guilty of the 2 murders he very likely committed (and even later wrote a book detailing how...because he's such an awesome father!), he was found responsible by a civil court. It's not justice, but at least it was some consequence and allowed the victims' families to have their say in court and to get some judge to say he was at least "more likely than not" guilty. Likewise, this woman has the right to her day in court. If she has evidence that back up her claims, hopefully she will win and he will at least face some consequences for his actions. If she doesn't have evidence, or if he has evidence that proves more reliable than hers, hopefully he will win and be vindicated. As it stands, we don't have enough information to assume either of them is "wrong." Assuming that you do based on who's accusing whom is just misguided, and possibly based on more gender bias than you're willing to admit to.

For example, if you're concerned only with fairness, rather than gender issues, why say, "You just don't hear a lot about domestic violence if it's the woman who is the guilty party"? What does that have to do with your supposedly gender-bias free assumptions? And why do you assume that a woman accused would be the "guilty party"? Where's the assumption of her not being guilty and of him being "wrong"?

If you actually go back and read what I said in the post you originally replied to, you'll notice that I said we shouldn't assume either is telling the truth. I didn't say we should believe her. I just said we shouldn't automatically believe him either. It's hard, I know. But it's what actual fairness requires.

[RonMexico]

Read up! On that one event - no direct witnesses. On prior events she has witnesses. That might lend a little bit of extra cred to a circumstancial civil case. This isnt complete hogwash...or the lawyers wouldnt touch it. Get off of the criminally innocent or guilty angle. That's not the consideration now. Did this man assault this woman,.. ever? And what should anything be done about that,... to send a punitive message for the unacceptable behavior that's been alleged. Should a penalty or an offer of restitution be made to either party as victims. That's the point now.

I'm offering my opinion on how he is being perceived publicly...& why. Then I'm offering-up some suggestions on how I feel that he might be able to repair these perceptions. It's PR. Some professionals actually care about that. I don't get why you continue to take offence. But - I'm me,..you're you. We're apparently at an impasse. You don't think he should care about such things, at all. I think he should be caring about PR, a little bit more.

Still beating this drum I see.

Maybe his lawyers and the team lawyers are telling him to keep his mouth zipped. When has publicly addressing any alleged wrong-doings, before you are convicted of them, helped out anyone's cause or their image? If Varlamov speaks out against violence towards women and then the civil suit shows he did assault her, that is some serious egg on his face. Yet if comes out and admits he assaulted her, his career is doomed. This is commonly known as a lose-lose scenario.

There is even a chance that he actually does want to try to get out ahead of it but his legal team might be advising against it. It seems the only good option is to sit tight and wait until the right time to address this...which may be never.

[Fox Mulder]

If you believe it's wrong to assume someone is guilty of a crime, then why are you doing just that? If you are "making the assumption that maybe he is a gold digger" of anyone accusing someone of domestic violence, you are assuming they are guilty of lying to the police and/or courts. Those are crimes. Worse still, assuming that anyone accusing someone of domestic violence is lying is incredibly dangerous. It's attitudes like that that encourage people to stay in abusive relationships and to not go to the cops even when they fear for their safety for very real reasons.

You should remember the distinction between legal guilt and the truth. The goal of the justice system is to line the two up, but that doesn't always happen. There are millions of people who are never even accused of crimes they actually committed. There are many more who are acquitted of crimes they actually committed. And, there are, sadly, some who are convicted (and therefore legally guilty) of crimes they did not commit. The criminal justice system is designed to find the truth, but it has many holes and flaws that we are (hopefully!) still trying to address as a society. As such, criminal outcomes cannot be viewed as an absolute reflection of reality. Making that mistake leads to innocent people being left to rot in prison or guilty people walking away free of any consequences.

We have a civil court because we know that not all things can be resolved by the criminal court. Just as OJ was found legally not guilty of the 2 murders he very likely committed (and even later wrote a book detailing how...because he's such an awesome father!), he was found responsible by a civil court. It's not justice, but at least it was some consequence and allowed the victims' families to have their say in court and to get some judge to say he was at least "more likely than not" guilty. Likewise, this woman has the right to her day in court. If she has evidence that back up her claims, hopefully she will win and he will at least face some consequences for his actions. If she doesn't have evidence, or if he has evidence that proves more reliable than hers, hopefully he will win and be vindicated. As it stands, we don't have enough information to assume either of them is "wrong." Assuming that you do based on who's accusing whom is just misguided, and possibly based on more gender bias than you're willing to admit to.

For example, if you're concerned only with fairness, rather than gender issues, why say, "You just don't hear a lot about domestic violence if it's the woman who is the guilty party"? What does that have to do with your supposedly gender-bias free assumptions? And why do you assume that a woman accused would be the "guilty party"? Where's the assumption of her not being guilty and of him being "wrong"?

If you actually go back and read what I said in the post you originally replied to, you'll notice that I said we shouldn't assume either is telling the truth. I didn't say we should believe her. I just said we shouldn't automatically believe him either. It's hard, I know. But it's what actual fairness requires.

I agree with basically everything you've said. Perhaps I have just done a poor job of elaborating on it.

I believe in equal justice for both parties and don't want to make any assumptions at all. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that this shouldn't be out in the media for people to be able to make assumptions over it. Does that make sense?

My comment about domestic violence only ever being brought up in the media if it's a man hitting a woman does not mean I'm making assumptions of guilt. It was a poorly worded example of how you can turn on your TV or Internet and see report after report of Ray Rice or Varlamov or Voynov but when it's Hope Solo for example, it gets swept under the rug.

I hope this clears up any misunderstandings

[Fox Mulder]

If you believe it's wrong to assume someone is guilty of a crime, then why are you doing just that? If you are "making the assumption that maybe he is a gold digger" of anyone accusing someone of domestic violence, you are assuming they are guilty of lying to the police and/or courts. Those are crimes. Worse still, assuming that anyone accusing someone of domestic violence is lying is incredibly dangerous. It's attitudes like that that encourage people to stay in abusive relationships and to not go to the cops even when they fear for their safety for very real reasons.

You should remember the distinction between legal guilt and the truth. The goal of the justice system is to line the two up, but that doesn't always happen. There are millions of people who are never even accused of crimes they actually committed. There are many more who are acquitted of crimes they actually committed. And, there are, sadly, some who are convicted (and therefore legally guilty) of crimes they did not commit. The criminal justice system is designed to find the truth, but it has many holes and flaws that we are (hopefully!) still trying to address as a society. As such, criminal outcomes cannot be viewed as an absolute reflection of reality. Making that mistake leads to innocent people being left to rot in prison or guilty people walking away free of any consequences.

We have a civil court because we know that not all things can be resolved by the criminal court. Just as OJ was found legally not guilty of the 2 murders he very likely committed (and even later wrote a book detailing how...because he's such an awesome father!), he was found responsible by a civil court. It's not justice, but at least it was some consequence and allowed the victims' families to have their say in court and to get some judge to say he was at least "more likely than not" guilty. Likewise, this woman has the right to her day in court. If she has evidence that back up her claims, hopefully she will win and he will at least face some consequences for his actions. If she doesn't have evidence, or if he has evidence that proves more reliable than hers, hopefully he will win and be vindicated. As it stands, we don't have enough information to assume either of them is "wrong." Assuming that you do based on who's accusing whom is just misguided, and possibly based on more gender bias than you're willing to admit to.

For example, if you're concerned only with fairness, rather than gender issues, why say, "You just don't hear a lot about domestic violence if it's the woman who is the guilty party"? What does that have to do with your supposedly gender-bias free assumptions? And why do you assume that a woman accused would be the "guilty party"? Where's the assumption of her not being guilty and of him being "wrong"?

If you actually go back and read what I said in the post you originally replied to, you'll notice that I said we shouldn't assume either is telling the truth. I didn't say we should believe her. I just said we shouldn't automatically believe him either. It's hard, I know. But it's what actual fairness requires.

I agree with basically everything you've said. Perhaps I have just done a poor job of elaborating on it.

I believe in equal justice for both parties and don't want to make any assumptions at all. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that this shouldn't be out in the media for people to be able to make assumptions over it. Does that make sense?

My comment about domestic violence only ever being brought up in the media if it's a man hitting a woman does not mean I'm making assumptions of guilt. It was a poorly worded example of how you can turn on your TV or Internet and see report after report of Ray Rice or Varlamov or Voynov but when it's Hope Solo for example, it gets swept under the rug.

I hope this clears up any misunderstandings

[poetica]

I agree with basically everything you've said. Perhaps I have just done a poor job of elaborating on it.

I believe in equal justice for both parties and don't want to make any assumptions at all. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that this shouldn't be out in the media for people to be able to make assumptions over it. Does that make sense?

My comment about domestic violence only ever being brought up in the media if it's a man hitting a woman does not mean I'm making assumptions of guilt. It was a poorly worded example of how you can turn on your TV or Internet and see report after report of Ray Rice or Varlamov or Voynov but when it's Hope Solo for example, it gets swept under the rug.

I hope this clears up any misunderstandings

I see your point and in fact agree wholeheartedly that male victims and female perpetrators are often downplayed because they don't fit the image of masculinity or femininity that most people are comfortable with. However, when it comes to hearing about the specific cases we've been talking about I think it's a mistake to assume it's due to a gender bias as opposed to having much more to do with our culture's obsession with fame.

The fact is the more famous someone is the more anything involving them gets talked about. There are over 40,000 domestic violence arrests made each year in Canada (and one would assume a significantly higher number in the US) and yet we hear about almost none of them regardless of gender. We did hear about Hope Solo getting arrested for 2 counts of domestic violence only because she's semi-famous. (I'm not sure how you can say something was "swept under a rug" when it was reported by the Washington Post, ABC News, USA Today, the BBC, Seattle Times, NY Post, NY Daily News, and Time. And those are literally just the first page of the 17,100,000 Goggle search results for "Hope Solo arrested".)

In reality, we hear more about male athletes simply because there are more of them and, with rare exception, they're more famous than female athletes. But rest assured, if Miley Cyrus were to be arrested for domestic violence, the internet would EXPLODE and you wouldn't be able to look at any news source without it being the top story for weeks. In fact, remember how much coverage the video of Beyonce's sister assaulting Jay Z got? [You can argue that there wasn't enough public call for her to be arrested, and I'd agree. The video evidence was certainly clear enough to charge her, but in reality most simple assaults aren't addressed by the police even though they technically can and often should be. Even with the higher level of violence in the Ray Rice case and despite all of the public outrage, he was allowed into a "Pre-Trial Intervention program, a rehabilitation alternative to prosecution. If Rice completes an anger-management program and complies with other terms, the charges will be dropped and he won’t have a record of conviction." [source] (She was also originally charged with assault for slapping him but the charge was later dropped.) In reality, most people charged with domestic violence, sometimes even more violent than the Rice case, are allowed similar deals, especially for first time offenses. Even when convicted, the overwhelming majority face nothing harsher than probation. As a result, the cops are often reluctant to do the paper work on anything they don't deem severe enough. It ain't right, but it is reality.]

Anyway, back to my point that fame is often mistaken for higher importance. The NFL is a richer, more famous league and as such their athletes are talked about extensively. The NHL doesn't share the same status. So, while most people probably know who Rice is now, I doubt that most people outside of the hockey world have ever heard of Varlamov or Voynov. And while Solo was talked about a bit in the media due to her status as a Team USA athlete, I would imagine it was a much bigger deal among the media covering women's soccer. That's just how it works.

Seriously, for all we know there could be a serious string of arrests in the bowling world going on right now that none of us have ever heard of because....it's bowling.

[Mr. Ambien]

The problem is that no one is asking you. Also he does not have to make any kind of public statement to prove his innocence through other means. Obviously you have already decided he is guilty. He may be, but no one has proved that yet.

Heck, so far all there is to go off of is one woman's claims against him. It's as valid as if I claim that you assaulted me yesterday. No one here can know if I'm lying or not, doesn't mean you better make a public statement against violence though.

You should wait until the judge decides what's been done and what hasn't before you start deciding how someone else should live their life.

But then "she wouldn't be her", and you "wouldn't be you".

And Nancy Grace wouldn't be Nancy Grace.