Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Jake Virtanen update

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Arrow 1983 said:

He has not be found guilty of anything.

 

Innocent till proven guilty. JV has committed no crimes he has no criminal record.

 

So why the leave of absence

Are you serious, dude? :picard:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Oh my god... not only did you rip off the quote from Denzel Washington's character from the movie Training Day, you have just spewed a bunch of nonsense in the same post. Holy $&!#.

(54) It's not what you know. It's what you can prove - YouTube

 

Many movies have used it there is even a Latin term for it 

Edited by Arrow 1983
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Are you serious, dude? :picard:

you didn't answer the question 

 

why the leave of absence 

 

to protect their as*s not Jakes it leaves them open for a law suit if she is lying 

 

How does a leave of absents help him. I know how it hurts him in the public eye but how does it help him. simple answer it doesn't. Would it not look better if his team stood behind him.

  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well at this point this issue has to be brought full circle.  

 

Either Virtanen is charged with sexual misconduct, his contract is void and he is most likely banished from the league (indirectly).  

 

Otherwise he needs to sue the girl back and get compensation for having his name dragged through the mud.  

 

His reputation has been tarnished regardless of the result.  

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, erkayloomeh said:

This is confusing?  They had sex right? Virtanen has admitted that.

So if she didn't consent then that's rape right. If they had sex then what's the sexual misconduct charge for exactly? 

Sexual misconduct is not a legal term. Media and Police will use it prior to charges being laid it sounds better if there is no charges laid.

 

Sexual assault is what has been filled against him. This includes a lot including rape.

 

He can say he meet up with her that is not illegal. He can say he had sex with her that is not illegal.

 

The question was did he have consent. NO CONSENT THAT IS RAPE. consent that is sex or love making or anything else you want to call it but not rape. 

 

But really consent is hard to prove when it is he said she said. Therefore, prove and facts will determine if there was or wasn't consent and even than it will not be factually known by the public only 2 people will know her and JV. Prove and facts are only based on what most likely occurred what was the reasonable scenario to have occurred based on what can be known like text messages

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, VancouverHabitant said:

Well at this point this issue has to be brought full circle.  

 

Either Virtanen is charged with sexual misconduct, his contract is void and he is most likely banished from the league (indirectly).  

 

Otherwise he needs to sue the girl back and get compensation for having his name dragged through the mud.  

 

His reputation has been tarnished regardless of the result.  

JV will never sue her.

 

She probably has no money. You can't get blood from a stone and you can't get money from a poor person.

 

He could sue the Canucks if it ends up being a lie and his career some how ends because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Arrow 1983 said:

JV will never sue her.

 

She probably has no money. You can't get blood from a stone and you can't get money from a poor person.

 

He could sue the Canucks if it ends up being a lie and his career some how ends because of it.

His career ending because of this is a very good possibility.  

We've seen lots of people that have had similar allegations NOT be proven in court still have their careers ended in entertainment.  

 

Although where there's smoke, there's usually fire....  there should still be a recourse for someone who is wrongfully accused and has their life ruined, to get their justice.  JV might still be found guilty, not saying anything on the outcome of this.  

 

Fu*k it, this is just a stupid topic to discuss, I'm out :canucks:

  • Hydration 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what's going to happen to Jake. 

 

All I know is that the longer this drags out, the worse it'll be for his career. He's not a good enough player where he can rise from this, and he's bad enough that another NHL organization probably has an equal player that they can promote from within, and not necessarily have to take a risk with Virtanen. I think he's either going to be Europe  or Russian bound when all is said and done. The team isn't going to be waiting for him until this is over. 

 

With all that being said, I hope this lights a fire under Jake's ass. If this doesn't wake him up, then I'm not sure what will. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arrow 1983 said:

If I was JV I would sue the Canucks for giving me a leave of absents on her flimsy story and he would have a case. My bet is the Canuck organization is still paying him.

 

It is also why I believe he will be bought out. Instead of them trying to terminate his contract

I would expect so.
 

I don’t believe an NHL team has any mechanism whereby they can simply refuse to pay a player while he’s under contract (other than indefinite suspension due to failure to report, which certainly isn’t applicable here).

 

In Virtanen’s case, it would appear he’s been placed on paid leave.

 

It may even be voluntary, or something mutually agreed upon by both the player and the team, rather than simply imposed on Virtanen by the Canucks.

 

Regardless, I’m pretty sure he’s still collecting his salary, same as if he were playing.

 

The only real option the team has to stop paying him would be to terminate the contract, which they don’t really have cause for yet.

 

It’ll depend on what the investigations reveal, but if enough comes out, they may try for material breach, based on paragraph 14 of the NHL Standard Player’s Contract (SPC), specifically the section that reads “The Club may also terminate this SPC upon written notice to the Player (but only after obtaining Waivers from all other Clubs) if the Player shall at any time:
(a) fail, refuse, or neglect to obey the Club’s rules governing training and conduct of Players, if such failure, refusal or neglect should constitute a material breach of this SPC.”

 

I believe this was the basis for the recent Brendan Leipsic termination. He was considered to be in material breach of his SPC because of his misogynistic comments and drug use discussions, in a private Instagram conversation, that were leaked on social media.

 

Certainly not a criminal act, but very unsavoury behaviour that reflected poorly on the club, and was determined to violate rules “governing training and conduct of players.”

 

Virtanen obviously stands accused of something far, far worse, but also something far more difficult to actually prove, at least in the legal sense.
 

But if anything comes out of the investigations that shows sexual misconduct, even if not meeting the legal standard for sexual assault, Virtanen could very well be considered in material breach of his SPC, and the contract terminated (after going through unconditional waivers). Even various manners of wrongdoing, poor judgment, or bad behaviour, uncovered through the course of either of the two concurrent investigations, might be enough, if we apply the Leipsic standard, to be considered violations of the club’s code of conduct, but that all remains to be seen.

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didnt want to weigh in on this.  I have zero agenda.

 

BUT

 

Sometimes things can be misinterpreted.  Jake strikes me as an honest kid, and given his age maybe a bit naïve at times.  Could sexual relations between the two be misinterpreted at some point or in hindsight not completely on the same page?

 

Sure.

 

But what we (the fans or as a third party) hear through reports can make it seem like communication was explicit.  And if that was the case, yes, you cant force yourself on anybody.  Absolutely not.

 

But if there wasnt explicit communication, if there was some "grey" area to it, PERHAPS some behavior can be attributed as regrettable.  I dont know Jake, and if he isnt the type of guy to force himself onto someone, and continue to do so despite explicit commands to stop, this case could be more "grey" area than people think.  

 

I think Im a socially conscious person.  Christ, Im a god damn vegan feminist at the end of the day.  And Im well aware of "victim blaming."  But when guys like Thomas Drance want to rake JB over the coals because he didnt refer to the woman as a "victim" in an alleged case-gtfo of here. 

 

I dont jump to conclusions and just hope for both parties sake, the truth comes out and both parties can find some closure (assuming this is indeed a case about finding the truth).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Arrow 1983 said:

you didn't answer the question 

 

why the leave of absence 

 

to protect their as*s not Jakes it leaves them open for a law suit if she is lying 

 

How does a leave of absents help him. I know how it hurts him in the public eye but how does it help him. simple answer it doesn't. Would it not look better if his team stood behind him.

The leave of absence keeps Jake away from the team, out of the public eye and having to answer awkward questions from the media.  They're trying to preserve his public reputation as best as they can.  Separating Jake from his playing duties also shows that the team does not condone this alleged behavior.

 

This seems to be playing out as expected.  There is no hard evidence.  No medical exam.  Only allegations.  Now, he is denying them.  She said..... he said..... and they can't convict on that but they can ruin a reputation. 

 

The next step will be a cash settlement.

 

 

Edited by Crabcakes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Angry Goose said:

I didnt want to weigh in on this.  I have zero agenda.

 

BUT

 

Sometimes things can be misinterpreted.  Jake strikes me as an honest kid, and given his age maybe a bit naïve at times.  Could sexual relations between the two be misinterpreted at some point or in hindsight not completely on the same page?

 

Sure.

 

But what we (the fans or as a third party) hear through reports can make it seem like communication was explicit.  And if that was the case, yes, you cant force yourself on anybody.  Absolutely not.

 

But if there wasnt explicit communication, if there was some "grey" area to it, PERHAPS some behavior can be attributed as regrettable.  I dont know Jake, and if he isnt the type of guy to force himself onto someone, and continue to do so despite explicit commands to stop, this case could be more "grey" area than people think.  

 

I think Im a socially conscious person.  Christ, Im a god damn vegan feminist at the end of the day.  And Im well aware of "victim blaming."  But when guys like Thomas Drance want to rake JB over the coals because he didnt refer to the woman as a "victim" in an alleged case-gtfo of here. 

 

I dont jump to conclusions and just hope for both parties sake, the truth comes out and both parties can find some closure (assuming this is indeed a case about finding the truth).

its really hard to know whats what. Warhippy has some pretty sketchy stories about things he's seen in person re: Jake. 

 

This "update" really doesn't teach us anything new about the situation, other than the Canucks changed investigators, but we don't know why.

 

And we may never actually know anything for sure about it, thats probably the most likely outcome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

The leave of absence keeps Jake away from the team, out of the public eye and having to answer awkward questions from the media.  They're trying to preserve his public reputation as best as they can.  Separating Jake from his playing duties also shows that the team does not condone this alleged behavior.

the Canucks organization handled things correctly, which is good to see. 

 

12 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

 

This seems to be playing out as expected.  There is no hard evidence.  No medical exam.  Only allegations.  Now, he is denying them.  She said..... he said..... and they can't convict on that but they can ruin a reputation. 

 

The next step will be a cash settlement.

 

 

just have to wait and see. Sounds like no one is done investigating yet. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Drakrami said:

No, there's no need to put words in my mouth and make conclusions for me based on my statements, thank you. 

Our argument is she consent to the sexual act or not. Which everyone is trying to find out, but no one can prove. So I raised the question, if she was not consenting, why didn't she struggle to get out. 

 

You can argue that she froze up, which you already mentioned, but that's a pretty weak argument to me. And if there were already kissing, hugging and touching with consent, which the girl admitted, and she suddenly froze up when they start sex. Then can it be blamed on Virtanen and be said that he committed a crime? 

Absolutely (it's called rape dumbass).    Any normal adult would know something is wrong, ask their partner - and stop (if they said no a bunch of times and frooze).    He committed a crime in this case by not stopping, at the very least.  

 

Plus read the victim statement.   Shocking that gives JV an out somehow in your mind.   It doesn't.   Even married partners this isn't ok.   Not one bit.  Even if half of what the victim said was true, JV is a total douche-bag, including her age at the time.   Totally took advantage.   Didn't need to have sex with her.    Even if from the onset it was flirting and looking like a guaranteed hook-up.   It's called respect.   And treating the fairer sex with compassion, no doesn't mean go for it because we kissed and stuff.   He's paying the price already, just for putting himself in such a stupid position in the first place.    Ugh.   Maybe i misread or misunderstood your post,  but it looks to me like your not very sure what the definition of rape is.    And by the way, outside of murder (not even man slaughter, those are accidents), rape is the most detestable crime a human can commit to one another.   At least that's how i feel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

The leave of absence keeps Jake away from the team, out of the public eye and having to answer awkward questions from the media.  They're trying to preserve his public reputation as best as they can.  Separating Jake from his playing duties also shows that the team does not condone this alleged behavior.

 

This seems to be playing out as expected.  There is no hard evidence.  No medical exam.  Only allegations.  Now, he is denying them.  She said..... he said..... and they can't convict on that but they can ruin a reputation. 

 

The next step will be a cash settlement.

 

 

A cash settlement admits guilt.   Either way.    This is a crappy situation.    JV has a reputation as a party boy and a womanizer.   To the point that he's never fully committed to his profession.    

 

Lie detectors could be utilized in both cases.   And there are ways to find out guilt, police are experts at this sort of thing.    Hope they are involved at this point.   Can't victim blame and can't not give JV the benefit of the doubt.   I highly doubt JV will ever play another game in the NHL at this point though, even if no formal charges are laid.   Seattle was interested in him - not anymore.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Arrow 1983 said:

Sexual misconduct is not a legal term. Media and Police will use it prior to charges being laid it sounds better if there is no charges laid.

 

Sexual assault is what has been filled against him. This includes a lot including rape.

 

He can say he meet up with her that is not illegal. He can say he had sex with her that is not illegal.

 

The question was did he have consent. NO CONSENT THAT IS RAPE. consent that is sex or love making or anything else you want to call it but not rape. 

 

But really consent is hard to prove when it is he said she said. Therefore, prove and facts will determine if there was or wasn't consent and even than it will not be factually known by the public only 2 people will know her and JV. Prove and facts are only based on what most likely occurred what was the reasonable scenario to have occurred based on what can be known like text messages

I think I missed the charges.  Jake is criminally charged, by the crown, with sexual assault?  

Edited by Alflives
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Absolutely (it's called rape dumbass).    Any normal adult would know something is wrong, ask their partner - and stop (if they said no a bunch of times and frooze).    He committed a crime in this case by not stopping, at the very least.  

 

Plus read the victim statement.   Shocking that gives JV an out somehow in your mind.   It doesn't.   Even married partners this isn't ok.   Not one bit.  Even if half of what the victim said was true, JV is a total douche-bag, including her age at the time.   Totally took advantage.   Didn't need to have sex with her.    Even if from the onset it was flirting and looking like a guaranteed hook-up.   It's called respect.   And treating the fairer sex with compassion, no doesn't mean go for it because we kissed and stuff.   He's paying the price already, just for putting himself in such a stupid position in the first place.    Ugh.   Maybe i misread or misunderstood your post,  but it looks to me like your not very sure what the definition of rape is.    And by the way, outside of murder (not even man slaughter, those are accidents), rape is the most detestable crime a human can commit to one another.   At least that's how i feel. 

 

the fact that we still see comments with the tone of "why didn't she try harder' means we still need to keep having these conversations. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, vinny_in_vancouver said:

The article mentioned "Virtanen is seeking special costs against the plaintiff". Anybody know what those "special costs" are?

legal cost and expenses

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I think I missed the charges.  Jake is criminally charged, by the crown, with sexual assault?  

no charges yet, they are still investigating per the story. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -DLC- locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...