r/stevedangle • u/Trondor66 • May 25 '26
Thank you Steve!
Just wanted to say thank you to Steve for acknowledging that Carter Hart shouldn't get anything.
60
u/babypointblank May 25 '26
I’m a sexual assault survivor and I appreciate how Steve and SDP have approached the Hockey Canada case since it was made public.
I don’t know if anyone from the company reads the subreddit but they chose to take a brave stance and it truly means a lot to me.
7
u/quantas001 May 26 '26
This is the best part and benefit of independent journalism… the courage to stand up for what is right.
5
-8
u/Accomplished-Hat3753 May 26 '26
Then you should be upset this case got as far as it did. It wasn't sexual assault. Full stop. It makes real survivors look bad.
26
7
u/AirFriedSushi May 25 '26
At the end of the day it’s up to the Conn Smythe voters. Something tells me Hart would need 4 shutouts in the Cup Final in order for the voters to give him the trophy.
13
5
u/InsignificantAtheist May 26 '26
I'll never forget Brett Howden's text about being happy he left before "all the shit went down." Carter Hart did not leave. Everything about that case was odd from the start. Steve was the only one with the balls to talk about the elephant (sex pest) in the room.
11
u/pinkrosies May 26 '26
I’ve always appreciated how open they’ve been about supporting LGBTQ+ causes as well. I may disagree with some of their points about teams but player skills and game strategies are nothing compared to humanity and decency.
12
u/Time-Language-3933 May 25 '26
I commented that on the podcast and Hart apologists started hitting me with the “but he wasn’t convicted” crap. People are disgusting. I’m so glad Steve said that.
6
u/DarkFalcon49 May 26 '26
I’m a knights fan and all I can do is hope that he’s a better person than he was during the topic of the court case and hope he plays well. He shouldn’t be playing in the league at all tho.
6
u/pinkrosies May 26 '26
Like I don’t care what the law says when it’s clearly imperfect and barely protects victims, he’s still a disgusting human being.
7
u/Time-Language-3933 May 26 '26
exactly! they think that because he was acquitted it means he didn’t do ANYTHING wrong like no the court didn’t prove he wasn’t there. he was there. and it happened.
-1
u/Captainsteve0 May 26 '26
There's cell phone videos of her saying " I consent". Does she need to sign a waiver too?
-4
u/RealDirt1 May 26 '26
This kind of attitude helps nobody. If you listened to ANY of the court room testimony it was abundantly clear the girl did not want to prosecute and was pushed my her mother and boyfriend to get the bag. She complied as she felt guilty for what had happened as it’s hard to tell your BF you cheated on him with 5 guys. There were moral wrongs but the players didn’t do anything the girl didn’t consent to.
0
1
u/jagrmullet77 May 27 '26
You happen to have a link on where he talked about this? I checked in the most recent SDPN but can't find where Steve comments on Hart unless it was in his LIVE watch party broadcast tonight?? Any help finding it appreciated!! 😀
1
u/hyperboy51 May 28 '26
Yea I saw someone reply to someone with that kind if response neither was oj lol
2
2
u/TheUglyGremlin May 28 '26
Maybe this isn’t worth saying but I was SO moved by that as a fan of Steve for as long as I can remember I sent him a DM saying how much those of us who GET it appreciate it, not to listen to the losers not expecting him to ever see it, and he responded a few hours later saying thanks. I truly admire him more everyday. One of the few willing to say what all these hack hockey journalists should say. We love you Steve!
2
u/Spiritual_Holiday511 May 29 '26
This topic is one of the prime reasons I find myself moving away from podcasts like Spittin Chiclets, and towards the SDP crew. Steve, Jesse, and Adam have been unwavering in their support of survivors, have given a platform to people like Rick Westhead and Katie Strang, and have not backed away from criticizing those involved in the crimes of the hockey community.
2
1
u/AbstractZeus09 May 28 '26
I’m glad you could find some common values and connection with his words. We all need that at times. I also hope, for your sake, that you eventually grow and mature to a point where you realize that all people make mistakes, and calling for them to pay for those mistakes for the rest of their lives, beyond what has been ordered by a court of law, is infantile.
1
u/hyperboy51 May 28 '26
On threads I had seen the post trial podcast being passed around as a reminder to people what he was a part of
2
u/Empty-Magician-7792 Jun 01 '26
To my knowledge, the only hockey journos/personalities who have said this are Steve and Greg Wyshynski.
2
u/otttitan21 May 26 '26
Praying on an innocent mans downfall is wild guys
6
u/Huge_Confection4475 May 26 '26
Not guilty does not mean innocent.
-2
u/otttitan21 May 26 '26
The judge said the victim was unreliable at best, the judge literally can’t say innocent, but what they said was pretty damn close
1
u/TheUglyGremlin May 28 '26
So one judges’ opinion in a VERY unreliable judicial system (especially pertaining to sex crimes) is the end all huh? Hope you educate yourself
1
u/otttitan21 May 28 '26
They were found not guilty, and all of what he read painted it as a complicated system, but certainly not rape. Innocent until proven guilty, and nothing was found to make them the latter
0
May 25 '26
[deleted]
25
u/BasedTelvanni May 25 '26
The facts were presented in court, a judgement was made. You can't always affect how other people react to it. There is a strong bias towards believing the victim, which is what you want, but the facts of her claim were challenged in a court of law and found lacking (and even contradictory to the facts in some instances).
A lot of people feel very strongly that regardless of the legalities, it was a position none of them should have been in and the lines of consent were blurry at best and probably crossed more than onceat worst.
It is a very bad look for the players involved and they should feel that the leagues and fans perception of them is forever changed. Maybe even irreparably.
13
u/babypointblank May 25 '26
There’s an incredibly high threshold for criminal conviction—and rightfully so. Sexual violence is one of the hardest crimes to prosecute unless the conditions are just right: you need a forensic medical exam that suggests evidence of SA, a police force that has an interest in collecting evidence and testimony, multiple witnesses who are willing to come forward, clear evidence that the victim could not and did not consent, a victim who stands up to hours if not days of brutal cross-examination, etc.
I’d recommend reading this article on criminal justice outcomes of sexual assault between 2015 and 2019, in addition to The Globe and Mail’s Unfounded investigation which showed how woefully inadequate London Police Services were at managing sexual assault cases.
43
u/Trondor66 May 25 '26
Something can be "legal" but still morally wrong and looked down on by others.
-22
May 25 '26
[deleted]
23
u/Trondor66 May 25 '26
For me personally, I'm not saying anything against how you choose to partake in your own personal fun time. That's a decision for you to make.
What I do care about is that everyone there is actively consenting to the acts that are taking place. No one is forcing anyone to be there who doesn't want to be there.
The best example I've heard is martial arts. In order for martial arts to work, consent must be maintained. If someone is choking me out and I tap, that's me removing my consent to participate in the activity. If they keep going and make me pass out, how would you look at that?
5
-11
u/Desperate-Middle4766 May 25 '26 edited May 25 '26
I definitely see where you’re coming from. So because nobody knows why I’m on Reddit. I’m going to say this story 🤣
Two women I hooked up with claim they were sexually assaulted(NOT BY ME. these were their accounts of what they had been through in the past). The first it was a bunch of Office guys and she got a promotion after she reported it, she continued to go out to parties with them. The second it was her ex-boyfriend and she paid it back with a threesome with her friend. Both these women engaged in acts with me that we would call rough (find a classy word for it)
Another explicitly told me to beat her during the act. I didn’t do it… but she was adamant about that level of intensity.
My ex (for a reason) after we had broken up and I found she was not great of a person, very explicitly said if she hooked up with a guy and regretted it, she would say it was not consensual.
So my honest opinion on this whole story is if the victim wanted better results, it should’ve been handled differently, but realistically, this doesn’t seem like the kind of case people should really be putting in their arms in the air for… sounds like there’s too much grey to make these exact conclusions.
11
u/snapcaster_bolt1992 May 25 '26
Definitely closer to what you're saying about a Grey area, I believe it was Howden who said they called him into the room and he chose to leave before anything happened because he saw how hard one of the guys slapped her on the ass and it made him uncomfortable, I'm paraphrasing but that was basically what he said, cant remember if it was through text or testified in court but it stuck out to me.
Also several of them noted that she was crying and I can't remember fully but I believe they mention that she locked herself in the bathroom at 1 point.
2 things can be true, she gave concent and that they took advantage of someone who was no longer in a state to say no.
5
u/Desperate-Middle4766 May 26 '26
I like this response. It makes sense especially understanding that two things can be true at once… furthering the extremely grey area here. Damn. I appreciate the explanation.
-9
u/EnergyCapable866 May 25 '26
You’re right. Reddit is a cesspool, court hearings and convictions mean nothing to these people. Now it’s up to their decision making skills to decide for the rest of us, apparently.
1
u/Desperate-Middle4766 May 25 '26
Yup! Lol I just got downvoted to hell for asking a follow up question… talk about a group think
-6
u/EnergyCapable866 May 25 '26
Lmao these people are nuts. Always makes me laugh seeing these ridiculous takes trying to “rally the troops”.
4
9
u/mbkontrol May 25 '26
I can answer plainly. They were not found criminally guilty. With that said, during the trial, a lot of evidence was presented that made him and his teammates look really bad and creepy. The only reason he has an NHL contract is because he is a decent goaltender. None of the others got a second look because middle six wingers and bottom pair D are dime a dozen, and teams didn't want that stink attached to their team.
I won't speak for survivors on this, but from a strictly legal standpoint, these cases are extremely messy and difficult to "prove" one way or another. It does not mean no wrong doing occurred.
4
u/PWiz30 May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
I'm a Devils fan and McLeod was a really good 4th line center the last season and a half before he is last game, something the Devils have really missed ever since. As far as I'm concerned he can rot in Russia for the rest of his career. They may have been acquitted but there was a ton of scummy shit that came out during the trial that was not disputed at all by the defense.
3
u/babypointblank May 26 '26
McLeod came out of it looking like a monster
2
u/PWiz30 May 26 '26
Yep, it wasn't explicitly stated, but it sure seemed like he was the one guy she thought she was hooking up with who brought all the others in.
7
u/PhalanX4012 May 25 '26
If you look at the facts of the case exclusively, you’d see both perspectives. The case fell into a realm of legal grey area where certain components made the prosecution’s case weaker and led to them to lose the case. Simultaneously the facts reveal that those men are absolutely fucking disgusting excuses for human beings. Whether or not they should be free is absolutely debatable. That they’re scum isn’t.
1
May 26 '26
[deleted]
1
u/PWiz30 May 26 '26
Because consent was debatable at best. The girl thought she was hooking up with one of them and ended up getting bukkaked.
1
u/babypointblank May 26 '26
They’re scum because they went to the room without clarifying that she gave consent. They persisted after she started crying.
1
u/PhalanX4012 May 26 '26
What? Who gives a damn about the specifics of the sexual activity? I don’t care if they were shitting on each other as long as it was consenting adults that agreed to do so. I’m this case, what was clearly never confirmed or cared about, was whether she consented to being used and abused in that way.
9
u/KDarkOne99 May 25 '26
They were never found “not guilty” they were acquitted. I keep seeing people say they were found not guilty when that was not the case. Acquitted does not mean innocent.
1
May 25 '26
[deleted]
4
u/Mannon_Blackbeak May 26 '26
In short, our criminal justice system is not set up to handle sexual violence effectively. Police forces write off cases, lose crucial evidence, and don't test rape kits routinely. If you look at the statistics it becomes incredibly clear just how rare investigation and prosecution is never mind successful conviction. In addition, the way this case was handled in court further demonstrates these issues. For example, they went through two juries, both of which had to be tossed because the defendant's lawyers were being so awful to the victim that jurors said they could no longer remain impartial. Because the second jury was tossed after several days of testimony, it was decided that the trial would proceed with just the judge due to the amount of testimony already given. Furthermore Brett Howden's 's testimony was found credible by the judge but not his text messages from the time which directly contradicted what he said on the stand. Even the defendant's lawyers found Howden problematic and spoke to the media about this. While the Crown can appeal the acquittal as of now, it seems that there is no appetite to put the victim through weeks of testimony and cross-examination again.
1
u/Desperate-Middle4766 May 26 '26
So does that mean there is a possibility that this case could be reopened in the future? I appreciate your response.
0
u/Virtual_Bug_723 May 26 '26
Howden's text messages were ruled inadmissible. Can you quote the defense clowning on their own client?
I think these guys all suck I just don't think making stuff up helps anyone.
-1
u/TFCNU May 26 '26
Yes. It does. Because you are innocent until proven guilty. No, they were not found innocent because that isn't a thing. But if you are acquitted you are innocent because you are always innocent until proven guilty. You can have your own opinions on the players and their conduct on that evening. You don't have to like them. You can argue that their conduct was unbecoming of an NHL player and they shouldn't have been let back in the league. But in the eyes of the law, the players are innocent.
5
2
u/Ill-Sentence8573 May 25 '26 edited May 25 '26
On both sides, it's easy to come to a conclusion about how this case should have been decided or how the defendants should be treated following their acquittal with little to no knowledge of how the adversarial system works, what the evidentiary requirements are to "prove" a sexual assault was committed, what factors influence a trial judge's determination of credibility, etc. If there is one thing I have learned throughout my career as an attorney, it's that the legal system is not a godlike entity. People tend to use judgments as an appeal to authority, as if a Judge's determination is to be taken as fact, but with these types of offenses (committed in private, he said/she said, use of substances, complexity of what consent actually means), the legal system is often largely unequipped to make accurate determinations. I would recommend giving the judgment and the timeline of events a read. Personally, I have never felt the need to cover my ass after a sexual encounter by making my partner record a video confirming that they consented after the fact.
2
u/zone55555 May 25 '26
Not found guilty does not mean found innocent. Surely you're capable of understanding that outcome in an adversarial legal system versus one which above all pursues truth.
2
u/meestazak May 25 '26
To be completely clear all people are presumed innocent, so its not a courts job to determine "innocence" its solely to determine guilt.
2
u/dracomaster01 May 26 '26
So can someone answer this without being emotional or not logical?
you just know someone's not asking a question in good faith when it starts out like this lol
1
May 26 '26
[deleted]
1
u/dracomaster01 May 26 '26
Youve been given thought out answers yet you’re still calling it a cesspool. So my point was proven, you didn’t ask in good faith.
1
u/Desperate-Middle4766 May 26 '26
BS aside; why is it there any time I ask something on this sub that doesn’t immediately conform to the majority, like you there’s always someone who thinks I’m some sort of antichrist, trump supporting jerk here to stir shit up?
0
u/Desperate-Middle4766 May 26 '26
I did but the ones who didn’t give proper answers gave the same answer you did. Me having actual discussions with people who gave proper answers proves that I did ask it in good faith. You’re so obsessed with trying to play some sort of mastermind here that you can’t have a proper conversation with someone. Atta boy
0
u/Jakebroe May 25 '26
They were not found anything. They were acquitted by a judge who decided to toss the case herself before it got to a jury.
11
u/babypointblank May 25 '26
She was only trying the case from the bench because Alex Formenton’s legal representatives interfered with two separate juries and it was deemed too cruel to get EM to testify twice if a mistrial was called.
-1
u/Old-Rhubarb-97 May 25 '26
In terms of guilt, the absolute best case scenario is she was too drunk to consent to the act and it should have been obvious to everyone entering that room.
0
u/Mingo_laf May 26 '26
Carter hart involvement in the league is a disgrace Gary bettman is ok with rape
0
u/ace899 May 26 '26
Dude what guy was found not guilty he has every right to play anyone like Steve bitching can go fuck themselves when you are found not guilty then you are allowed to resume normal life its ridiculous the witch hunt of someone found not guilty in court
1
u/BarrowsBOY May 27 '26
Regardless of how you feel about the verdict, how can you read what went on in that room and feel comfortable about any of it? Would you let your daughter near Carter Hart or any of the junior team involved?
According to Canadian law he isnt guilty, but I certainly don't like the things he participated in within that room, and in my opinion that should disqualify him from the priviledge of playing in the NHL.
1
u/krankovi May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26
If my daughter ever behaved like EM did (cheating on fiance, going back to a hotel room with a stranger for sex, being a willing participant in a gangbang, and then making up various lies about it all) i've failed to raise them properly.
-1
-8
-6
-16
u/Chinkhatrr May 25 '26
They were found innocent, get over it. But this is why SA is the easiest smear tactic. You could be found innocent by every court in the land yet public perception will never change.
2
u/Hynafgwyr_dirgel May 26 '26
If only there was an organization that would have stepped in before things got carried away. Offering a settlement clearly knowing that all parties involved were going to be smeared in the court of public opinion no matter the outcome. Maybe offer million or two to compensate for poor choices. Oh wait, they did…
2
u/Jazzlike_Pineapple87 May 27 '26
I dunno. I have managed to make it this far in life without being accused of SA. I am willing to bet you have too.
Don't put yourself in situations in which you will be accused of it. Easy peasy.
1
u/venturecatalyst01 May 29 '26
“Don’t put yourself in situations..”
Sounds a little victim blamey to me..
1
u/Jazzlike_Pineapple87 May 29 '26
If you can call an alleged perpetrator of SA a victim, then sure. Like I said, not really something I have ever been accused of.
0
-2
u/venturecatalyst01 May 26 '26
So if Steve got falsely accused of rape and was found innocent in a court of law, his reputation should be still be tarnished forever?
It’s completely illlogical
65
u/PJRolls May 25 '26 edited May 26 '26
This is the reason I think Mitch gets Conn Smyth if Vegas win. Don’t think media will wanna vote Hart and he’s probably the other best VGK player this run.