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

[Report] Evander Kane accused of betting on Sharks games

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I wonder exactly what Kane does to make his teammates hate him so much?  First Winnipeg, then Buffalo, and now SJS.  Yes, off ice he’s obviously bad news, but what’s he doing in the room that is rubbing other guys the wrong way?  Or is it his off ice stuff that gets guys hating him?  He gambles; he’s a terrible husband and father; and he’s an idiot.  All off ice stuff.  On the ice he is quite a good player, who fights for his teammates.  So in the room there must be some really serious sh*t happening with him.  

I think he just annoys the f out if his teammates based on his character. Rubs folks the wrong way. Not just his off ice shenanigans but the way he just carries himself. 

  • Hydration 2
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I wonder exactly what Kane does to make his teammates hate him so much?  First Winnipeg, then Buffalo, and now SJS.  Yes, off ice he’s obviously bad news, but what’s he doing in the room that is rubbing other guys the wrong way?  Or is it his off ice stuff that gets guys hating him?  He gambles; he’s a terrible husband and father; and he’s an idiot.  All off ice stuff.  On the ice he is quite a good player, who fights for his teammates.  So in the room there must be some really serious sh*t happening with him.  

I'm gonna take a stab and just say he is probably obnoxious. He probably has a huge ego and maybe he is selfish. Teammates can pick up on stuff like that. It wouldn't surprise me if he told people how to do their job better.

 

Then add to the fact that he's an embarrassment off the ice. I think it would be pretty bad to be playing with this dude. But I'm just speculating everything up to this point.

 

I don't understand why despite Kane's horrible reputation that people automatically side with his wife. I don't know if people are just biased or what not, but when you actually read EVERYTHING she's written about Kane in her instagram posts, she comes across as toxic. It's possible that being with this man made her toxic, but nonetheless, she has demonstrated immaturity through this period when she jeered Kane on IG.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Silky mitts said:

how exactly does a winger throw a game? 

Purposely missing opportunities and taking bone head penalties accidentally on purpose. It’s not real rocket science

  • RoughGame 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Silky mitts said:

how exactly does a winger throw a game?

People just need to think for a minute instead of rushing to conclusions. The amount of stuff that has been said to confirm ppl's bias against this guy is disgusting. Yes, Kane is a questionable person. His reputation is arguably worse than Virtanen's escapades (before the latest accusations). That being said, one can still separate the fact that Kane is a POS, but still think, "wait a minute, this doesn't make sense".

 

image.thumb.png.b2bc8899f7c6f4b6ef8aacff388a76c5.png

 

Now this is not necessarily proof that he did or did not throw a game, but I feel his stats make a persuasive case that he didn't 'throw' games.

 

Well one could say, "Well, if he's hiding his betting, he could just score to do it", but it wouldn't be very convincing. :lol: You can't produce numbers like this by not trying.

And to your point, silky, deliberately giving up the puck does not guarantee that someone else would score on you. When there's a pattern of weird giveaways, the coach will notice this. A winger just doesn't have that much of an influence, to the extent that he can deliberately influence a game to go bad.

Edited by Dazzle
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

People just need to think for a minute instead of rushing to conclusions. The amount of stuff that has been said to confirm ppl's bias against this guy is disgusting. Yes, Kane is a questionable person. His reputation is arguably worse than Virtanen's escapades (before the latest accusations). That being said, one can still separate the fact that Kane is a POS, but still think, "wait a minute, this doesn't make sense".

 

image.thumb.png.b2bc8899f7c6f4b6ef8aacff388a76c5.png

 

Now this is not necessarily proof that he did or did not throw a game, but I feel his stats make a persuasive case that he didn't 'throw' games. Kane is clearly a narcissist.


I may have missed it but I don’t believe that any accusation of throwing games has been made against him. He has been accused of betting on Sharks games which leads to speculation when it becomes public. MLB has been through this with their game-fixing scandals and again with betting on games with Pete Rose. For major league sports speculation can cause as much or more damage than the act itself. Between refereeing incidents, the Blackhawks and now this, it has been an ugly year at NHL head offices.

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

People just need to think for a minute instead of rushing to conclusions. The amount of stuff that has been said to confirm ppl's bias against this guy is disgusting. Yes, Kane is a questionable person. His reputation is arguably worse than Virtanen's escapades (before the latest accusations). That being said, one can still separate the fact that Kane is a POS, but still think, "wait a minute, this doesn't make sense".

 

image.thumb.png.b2bc8899f7c6f4b6ef8aacff388a76c5.png

 

Now this is not necessarily proof that he did or did not throw a game, but I feel his stats make a persuasive case that he didn't 'throw' games.

 

Well one could say, "Well, if he's hiding his betting, he could just score to do it", but it wouldn't be very convincing. :lol: You can't produce numbers like this by not trying.

And to your point, silky, deliberately giving up the puck does not guarantee that someone else would score on you. When there's a pattern of weird giveaways, the coach will notice this. A winger just doesn't have that much of an influence, to the extent that he can deliberately influence a game to go bad.

I could not care less if he bet on his own games or not, I could no care less if he threw a game or did things to make sure certain prop bets paid out. 
 

HE LEFT HIS CHILDREN WHILE THEY WERE BECOMING HOMELESS!!!

 

Why do you insist on finding ways to defend him. Veiled “yah he’s POS but…” just points to your misogynistic bias. He’s a POS there is no qualifier beyond that.

 

Stop trying to argue that he is anything but a terrible father, a worse husband and degenerate gambler/partier who at best tried to FaceTime his 1 year old daughter while he left for Europe when she was losing her housing security and her mother was told to make sure his G wagon was protected in the garage and the key to his daughter’s home was left under the effing mat on their way to the street.

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 2
  • RoughGame 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

And to your point, silky, deliberately giving up the puck does not guarantee that someone else would score on you. When there's a pattern of weird giveaways, the coach will notice this. A winger just doesn't have that much of an influence, to the extent that he can deliberately influence a game to go bad.

While I agree with most of what you said, I think when we are talking about the Shark's top scorer, he does indeed have SOME influence over the outcome of a game. Take his 22 goals out of the equation and the Sharks fall to easily the worst team in the league. And if he were to have even the tiniest shred of influence, it becomes a conflict of interest - pure and simple.

 

Even if he didn't, here's just another example of drama following Kane around on a consistent basis like it does for Jake. So glad we never acquired the former, and even more glad we got rid of the latter. This team doesn't need distractions or players who cannot buy into the culture.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, kloubek said:

While I agree with most of what you said, I think when we are talking about the Shark's top scorer, he does indeed have SOME influence over the outcome of a game. Take his 22 goals out of the equation and the Sharks fall to easily the worst team in the league. And if he were to have even the tiniest shred of influence, it becomes a conflict of interest - pure and simple.

 

Even if he didn't, here's just another example of drama following Kane around on a consistent basis like it does for Jake. So glad we never acquired the former, and even more glad we got rid of the latter. This team doesn't need distractions or players who cannot buy into the culture.

But that still doesn't explain how he got so many assists in the process of doing so. Opportunities don't always pan out, and add to the fact that you have a legitimate chance to score (and win the game), you just throw away the puck and SOMEHOW pray that the guy scores on you. It's a conspiracy theory and not a very good one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aladeen said:

I could not care less if he bet on his own games or not, I could no care less if he threw a game or did things to make sure certain prop bets paid out. 
 

HE LEFT HIS CHILDREN WHILE THEY WERE BECOMING HOMELESS!!!

 

Why do you insist on finding ways to defend him. Veiled “yah he’s POS but…” just points to your misogynistic bias. He’s a POS there is no qualifier beyond that.

 

Stop trying to argue that he is anything but a terrible father, a worse husband and degenerate gambler/partier who at best tried to FaceTime his 1 year old daughter while he left for Europe when she was losing her housing security and her mother was told to make sure his G wagon was protected in the garage and the key to his daughter’s home was left under the effing mat on their way to the street.

 

I never defended Kane at all. I'm setting aside another angle to look at it, which you obviously refuse to do. In no way does my criticism of his wife CONDONE ANYTHING KANE DOES. You are deliberately twisting my words, such as accusing me of using a qualifier, as some kind of false proof that I'm defending him.

 

In fact, I have openly acknowledged his poor reputation (very few people can legitimately defend him). At the same time (which has NO BEARING ON HIS REPUTATION), his wife has typed some really nasty stuff, on the level of revenge.

 

I have always said there are two sides of the story. Simply focussing on Kane's reputation ABSOLVES the questionable actions/behaviour of his wife on IG. Making excuses for her behaviour is showing your bias.

 

So yeah, you are biased toward the wife. I have no stake in defending Kane, period.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

 

I never defended Kane at all. I'm setting aside another angle to look at it, which you obviously refuse to do. In no way does my criticism of his wife CONDONE ANYTHING KANE DOES. You are deliberately twisting my words, such as accusing me of using a qualifier, as some kind of false proof that I'm defending him.

 

In fact, I have openly acknowledged his poor reputation (very few people can legitimately defend him). At the same time (which has NO BEARING ON HIS REPUTATION), his wife has typed some really nasty stuff, on the level of revenge.

 

I have always said there are two sides of the story. Simply focussing on Kane's reputation ABSOLVES the questionable actions/behaviour of his wife on IG. Making excuses for her behaviour is showing your bias.

 

So yeah, you are biased toward the wife. I have no stake in defending Kane, period.

 

 

your bias shows every single time you qualify your statements.

 

You want to know how I know what she is saying is the truth and EKs statement is a load of garbage?

 

It simple really but in order to follow it you need to get out of your head that it’s a woman’s duty to raise her kids and if she speaks out about it the hardships she faces while doing so she is just a “crazy bitch” Think you can handle that?

 

Good.

 

If what EK said in his statement is true that she is just mentally unwell and just looking to harm his career, but more importantly not allowing him to see his child, where would he be? Where would any man be? The answer is in a lawyers office in the city where their child is finding every possible legal way to see his child.

 

Europe is pretty tough place to fight legal battles in the US over custody or visitation. Although I’m not a lawyer, the court would look more favourably upon someone who is there fighting for their fatherly rights rather than prioritizing a vacation in Europe to go clubbing or make out with hot chicks. 
 

So if he is full of crap on that subject (the most important subject) what else is he full of crap on in his statements? 
 

So stop with the qualifiers and try to understand how hard it is for a pregnant women to also raise a toddler while being evicted from her home. A little empathy for her situation would do wonders for your relationships with the women in your life.

  • RoughGame 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Aladeen said:

your bias shows every single time you qualify your statements.

 

You want to know how I know what she is saying is the truth and EKs statement is a load of garbage?

 

It simple really but in order to follow it you need to get out of your head that it’s a woman’s duty to raise her kids and if she speaks out about it the hardships she faces while doing so she is just a “crazy bitch” Think you can handle that?

 

Good.

 

If what EK said in his statement is true that she is just mentally unwell and just looking to harm his career, but more importantly not allowing him to see his child, where would he be? Where would any man be? The answer is in a lawyers office in the city where their child is finding every possible legal way to see his child.

 

Europe is pretty tough place to fight legal battles in the US over custody or visitation. Although I’m not a lawyer, the court would look more favourably upon someone who is there fighting for their fatherly rights rather than prioritizing a vacation in Europe to go clubbing or make out with hot chicks. 
 

So if he is full of crap on that subject (the most important subject) what else is he full of crap on in his statements? 
 

So stop with the qualifiers and try to understand how hard it is for a pregnant women to also raise a toddler while being evicted from her home. A little empathy for her situation would do wonders for your relationships with the women in your life.

You are projecting. I never once said it was a woman's duty to raise kids and stay at home, or anything sexist like that. You should actually re-read what I said because you're so off-base to my actual position.

 

I was raised by a single mother, so I have great respect to those who can pull it off. You have absolutely no freaking clue about what you're talking about. Someone like Anna Kane knows nothing about poverty, so don't ever lecture me about what it means to be poor and what it means to have a woman busting her ass working. Anna spends her time on IG travelling, living the good life. Something that my mother never had.

 

Go re-read what I actually wrote. You say I am biased. Are you capable of looking at your own?

 

  • Wat 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

You are projecting. I never once said it was a woman's duty to raise kids and stay at home, or anything sexist like that. You should actually re-read what I said because you're so off-base to my actual position.

 

I was raised by a single mother, so I have great respect to those who can pull it off. You have absolutely no freaking clue about what you're talking about. Someone like Anna Kane knows nothing about poverty, so don't ever lecture me about what it means to be poor and what it means to have a woman busting her ass working. Anna spends her time on IG travelling, living the good life. Something that my mother never had.

 

Go re-read what I actually wrote. You say I am biased. Are you capable of looking at your own?

 

 

2 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

You are projecting. I never once said it was a woman's duty to raise kids and stay at home, or anything sexist like that. You should actually re-read what I said because you're so off-base to my actual position.

 

I was raised by a single mother, so I have great respect to those who can pull it off. You have absolutely no freaking clue about what you're talking about. Someone like Anna Kane knows nothing about poverty, so don't ever lecture me about what it means to be poor and what it means to have a woman busting her ass working. Anna spends her time on IG travelling, living the good life. Something that my mother never had.

 

Go re-read what I actually wrote. You say I am biased. Are you capable of looking at your own?

 

Am I biased against a total dbag that refuses to fight for his children? That let his children lose their home even with the money he’s made? Against a so called man that would prioritize partying over making sure the welfare of his child going through trauma of losing her home?  Biased against a “man” who would allow his child to be with a “mentally unwell” woman (if that were true) you better believe I am biased against him. That’s not what a man does as a father.
 

You are literally so biased you can’t even see it. You are still saying EK is an ass BUT… 

 

I don’t know yours or your mom’s life, all I can base my knowledge of you is what you post and if you don’t get it by now you never will.  

  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 1
  • RoughGame 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Aladeen said:

 

Am I biased against a total dbag that refuses to fight for his children? That let his children lose their home even with the money he’s made? Against a so called man that would prioritize partying over making sure the welfare of his child going through trauma of losing her home?  Biased against a “man” who would allow his child to be with a “mentally unwell” woman (if that were true) you better believe I am biased against him. That’s not what a man does as a father.
 

You are literally so biased you can’t even see it. You are still saying EK is an ass BUT… 

 

I don’t know yours or your mom’s life, all I can base my knowledge of you is what you post and if you don’t get it by now you never will.  

I just sent you a PM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

E7p68qoXsAYIAIk?format=jpg&name=large

 

Does this type of post convince people that MAYBE there's two (or more) sides to the story?

Edited by Dazzle
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Silky mitts said:

how exactly does a winger throw a game? 

Not for you alone, but many others.

Evander Kane is accused, by his soon to be ex wife, of betting on the games; at no point did she allege he was throwing games.

 

I don't gamble, but am positive there is more to put money on than just wins and loses.

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2.jpg?w=642&ssl=1

 

3.jpg?w=649&ssl=1

 

Notice how she shifts her argument? She claims that her perspectives are controlled by the media because of who she is.


Are you kidding me?

I haven't seen a single article that talks about Kane being a good man because it's actually the paper's incentive to talk about this wild public spectacle. The bigger the story, the better. The papers have no legitimate reason for suppressing the story of a public figure, especially these juicy details that have yet to be verified.

 

Kane is manipulative, but so is the wife. She's using this so-called psycho ex-wife platform to criticize everyone else. She even said that Kane told her that the gamblers would kill her. I don't know how much of that allegation is true or not. One thing that seems to be a theme with her is that she's throwing all these accusations all at once, and it's hard to tell what is fact and what is embellishment.

Thus, it is imperative not to take her story at full value. This in NO WAY means that Kane is defensible as a father or a person.

 

Don't be a pseudo social justice drone. Think about the things you read carefully. You cannot base a story off one source, and you cannot look for a source to confirm your pre-existing opinions. That is not rational. That's a confirmation bias.

 

Let the investigators do their jobs.

Edited by Dazzle
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because he had good stats doesn't really mean much, that shouldn't exclude him for the past 11 years of playing now especially when he's an addict, again a guy like Pete Rose who was also an addict to gambling but also had insane stats, holds the MLB record for most hits, that couldn't stop the addiction urge from betting on his team. So I'm supposed to believe that a guy who's addicted to gambling and was $27M in debt because of his addiction didn't bet once on any hockey game in the last 11 years.... Really... So if a drug addict said to you I only do drugs in the town next to mine I never do drugs in the town I live in, are people going to believe him now? I doubt it he's an addict it's the same way I'm looking at Kane he's an addict I have hard time believing he never bet once on hockey.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...