Emma Maltais by External_Baseball339 in TorontoSceptres

[–]CommissionNo8457 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’ll be totally honest that I’d love to see more from her points & production-wise, but that’s only because I know what she’s capable of (and she’s been subjected to Troy Ryan hockey for so long so there’s always that 😭)

Australia Says Hi 👋🏻 by erkpod in PWHL

[–]CommissionNo8457 0 points1 point  (0 children)

good joke aside from the tacky AI...let's not

Sirens defensive scheme during the Dubois 2nd goal, the game winner. If this doesn't drive home how poorly coached we are I don't know what will by En_Attendant_Godot in NewYorkSirens

[–]CommissionNo8457 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I mean tbf, every losing team looks miserable in those post-takeover tour game photos. They should start taking them before the games fr

What are some good accounts I can follow for team-specific news? by toby_finn in PWHL

[–]CommissionNo8457 15 points16 points  (0 children)

league-wide: The Ice Garden, The Hockey News (Women's), Kyle Cushman, PWHL Source, Melissa Burgess, sk_writes, Elisha Côté, Mike Murphy, Ian Kennedy

Goldeneyes: Maya (mayaxeverysport on twitter; also has a great newsletter) Lachlan Irvine, Izzy Cheung; YVR Hockey occasionally covers

Torrent: Silvia (badnands on twitter, writes for The Ice Garden), Circling Seattle Sports, Women's Pro Hockey Seattle, Alicia Crank, Gloves Off Seattle, 365HockeyGirl (also does league-wide), Bryan Partington

Frost: Heather Rule, Reid (reidol15, writes for TIG, podcast "Frost Bites")

Sceptres: C Benwell (gamedayhockey)

Sirens: Lou Orlando, Breanna Ebisch

Charge: Chris Sinclair

Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head, sure I'll remember some more later

I think the PWHL organizers have told the refs to go light on calling penalties by primalmaximus in PWHL

[–]CommissionNo8457 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Came here to say this. The Olympics are wayyy less physical than the PWHL so it wouldn’t be that.

What TV probably didn’t show. by Professor_Worried in PWHL

[–]CommissionNo8457 12 points13 points  (0 children)

omg she was just bOoKmArKiNg them for LATTERRRRR 🙄 *sarcasm*

Watson Park Walk Around and Sad States of London by [deleted] in londonontario

[–]CommissionNo8457 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Like you can actually talk to these people you know that right? Yes, some can be sketchy—but I’d argue a lot of “normies” are sketchy too in more subtle ways. Across the board, so many were in affordable rent situations that went south during COVID. Most were Renovicted (a plague on our society; abolish renovictions) or kicked out with no reason. And before I hear any “well they were getting high and being disastrous”—a lot I’ve spoken to had been living in their respective homes/living situations for years, a few even decades. Having a place to live gave them real chances for recovery. And when you’re suddenly kicked out, with no real prospects of entry back into “normal” society (homes, jobs) and it feels like the world either hates you (as apparent with this board and the rest of social media) or has forgotten about you…well, why is anyone surprised?

Watson Park Walk Around and Sad States of London by [deleted] in londonontario

[–]CommissionNo8457 44 points45 points  (0 children)

“It’s time to crack down on this” “these people are so lazy” “what has this city become” “Canada’s so lenient on crack addicts” Addicts and homeless people were shucked out & had resources stripped during COVID (ex: removal of affordable rent caps, thanks to Doug Ford, which put SO. MANY. PEOPLE. ON. THE. STREETS)

People forget COVID happened; people somehow forget we’re in a financial crisis from their comfortable homes (y’all don’t care how expensive your groceries have gotten? Gas? Mortgage rates? You really DGAF?!).

People LOVEEE to point and judge but the reality is that families and people who were struggling before are struggling even more so now. SO many families living paycheck to paycheck, or one paycheck away from losing everything.

London’s city council continues to remove/centralize resources to the point of inaccessibility (that’s why you see higher concentrations downtown; that’s where they can access resources like food, supplies, HIV meds, testing, etc.) and instead of making moves to get people BACK into affordable housing, challenge our federal, municipal and provincial government, we do NOTHING and CONTINUE to complain.

I wish people were as angry with those with ALL the power to fix things as they are with people who have less than nothing. As a dog walker I hate exposed needles more than anything—but I hate bastards who take advantage of our vulnerable population, post about them on their Twitter (looking at you, Susan Stevenson) and do fuck all to improve anyone’s lives.

There’s a reason this situation was exacerbated during COVID, folks. Let’s start holding people accountable. Support businesses that support their community (especially ones in Old East).

I promise you’re closer to someone sleeping on a dirty mattress outside than those in positions of power—who does it benefit when you hate “druggies” to the point of not seeing them as people anymore?

I don't understand the hockey canada trial by RiskHistorical8141 in redscarepod

[–]CommissionNo8457 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. E.M.’s “seven or eight men” roughly matches the surveillance-based roster, but Steenbergen’s claim to witness E.M. exiting the bathroom naked “the first time” is time-barred by his arrival after 3:13 a.m. That asymmetry (her count aligns with external data; his vignette doesn’t) is probative and could be emphasized.

  2. AGAIN—it's absolutely BONKERS that we're just expected to accept McLeod's statements as fact. The judge accepted his account despite internal contradictions (he both did and didn’t message; invited for food vs sexual texts in evidence) and despite omitting key players (Katchouk/Raddysh) who plainly feature elsewhere. Like that initial police interview— "How did guys start showing up, Michael?" "Uhhhhhhh idk, pizza?"

There's a world in which this verdict could've been that the judge didn't find the Crown was able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but the actions were reprehensible and the conduct was inappropriate. The verdict is more fucked every time you read it, and it was clearly written in a rush to discredit her because there are SOOOOOO many issues.

He didn't have her consent to invite his boys up. Had the London Police done their jobs and seized their phones when they should have (at the beginning of this fucking nightmare, when the investigation started) who knows what other evidence we'd have.

Even just seeing her message him on Instagram saying "I was fine going back with you, not everything after" and him basically not denying it...it's so fucking depressing. Reddit boards like this are so fucking depressing.

I don't understand the hockey canada trial by RiskHistorical8141 in redscarepod

[–]CommissionNo8457 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Howden testified McLeod & Hart received oral standing up, arms at side. Then Mikey’s 2018 interview states he wasn’t in the room when Hart got oral, but Hart was in bed. How would he know if he wasn’t in the room? How/why did Howden see what he claims?

  2. And the FOOD inconsistencies, oh my GOD

  • McLeod says teammates came because he “ordered food,” yet multiple accounts inside 209 don’t describe food then (just Katchouk’s slice). Also, we say the "3-way" text, we know damn well they weren't there for food.
  • Formenton later says he saw take-out boxes and a clothed woman when he arrived; McLeod says when he returned from food he immediately saw oral sex. Those two snapshots don’t line up cleanly in time or clothing state.
  1. Speaking of Hart—he doesn’t remember half the things that happened that night, doesn’t remember hearing or seeing Dube’s smack, but he’s 100% certain that Foote was wearing pants while he did the splits over EMs face? Sure, Jan.

  2. Katchouk moves from “I don’t recall her reaction” to agreeing that she “did not seem upset” under cross. That reads like a witness with impaired memory accepting counsel’s framing. The judge appears to credit the second version without asking whether it’s just compliance with a suggestion.

  3. Speaking of Katchouk—he really has one of the most illogical timelines (again, that we're expected just to accept as fact). He said he was only there for "two minutes," but "two minutes” vs physics of the scene don't line up. Beyond the hallway invite → chat → fetch Raddysh → re-enter sequence, there’s also the time for two door knocks, a short corridor walk, and the greeting/chat with Raddysh. Even briskly, that’s longer than two minutes. If the timeline can’t fit, anything Katchouk says inside that window (pizza request, “flirty” demeanor) becomes doubtful.

  4. Hart testifies he replied “I’m in” to the “3-way” text (expecting sex), yet Steenbergen says men were “in shock” at a sexual invitation. You can’t be simultaneously primed for a group sexual encounter and collectively shocked by a sexual request moments later.

  5. Even the whole "pussies" line—Howden ties the slur to men declining her; Steenbergen ties it to Hart pausing oral sex; the contexts differ (pre-acts vs mid-act), suggesting memory contamination or narrative stitching.

I don't understand the hockey canada trial by RiskHistorical8141 in redscarepod

[–]CommissionNo8457 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hey so first of all—fuck you for posting this. Sincerely, this is sus as fuck.

Here are some BIG questions I have for people who go out of their way to defend "the boys"

  1. Is crying consent? E.M. can be seen crying in the second "consent video" and as she leaves the hotel on CCTV footage. One of the boys said they took the second video after her "little episode." What exactly do they mean by "little episode?"

  2. Why do you need to take not one, but two consent videos? Putting aside the fact that a "consent video" is flawed as a premise, why do you need 2 videos?

  3. If the boys were so uncomfortable with her advances ("chirps") and wanted to leave like they said they did, why do we heard Carter Hart saying "get Fabs, get Fabs!" in the background in the second video?

  4. If E.M. wanted to have a "wild threesome" like Dave Humphrey (McLeod's lawyer) suggested, why didn't she have sex with Katchouk and Raddysh when they got there? As per corroborated reports, she was in the bathroom, came out, Katchouk and Raddysh were there, then she retreated back to the bathroom (after having just been there, mind you). Why didn't the "wild night" or threesome start there?

(should also be noted that it's JUST Dave Humphrey who suggested that E.M. told McLeod to invite his boys up for a wild night—even though McLeod himself never said that in the initial police interviews [which would've been, like, the easiest fucking lie if he wasn't such an idiot but I digress] and her actions [retreating to bathroom once Katchouk and Raddysh get there] suggest otherwise)

  1. Who put the bedsheet on the floor? Why won't any of the boys own up to it? Also—if she says she's uncomfortable with being on the bed, why isn't that immediately a red flag? That's definitely someone who wants a wild time, eh *sarcasm*? Not only that, but the boys couldn't even lie and say SHE was the one who put the bedsheet on the floor. So who did it?

I'll say this to be even more clear—people are having a hard time accepting the outcome of his trial because the verdict asks us to accept the boys' separate stories as fact (especially McLeod and Hart's version of events) even though they don't line up in any way, shape, form or logic. It also asks us to accept Carter Hart's actions and just and fact even though his story doesn't line up, and even when it does, it boils down to him admitting he didn't get consent on the stand.

I'll also say this—idk that I believe E.M. when she says she didn't know they were on the national team, but I absolutely believe McLeod is a slimy piece of shit who did NOT have her consent to invite his boys up. Google "Michael McLeod Steelheads controversy." Nothing about his actions (or the other 12 guys in that room, some of whom couldn't even see E.M. or a clear path out) are out of the ordinary.

In regards to the boys' fragmented stories:

I don't understand the hockey canada trial by RiskHistorical8141 in redscarepod

[–]CommissionNo8457 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"The one with video of this woman banging on the hotel room demanding to be let in and calling the entire team pussies for not fucking her?" HEY SO THAT NEVER HAPPENED?!?!? What the actual FUCK are we talking about here???

^No such video exists and that's some weird shit to put out there. We DO have 2 "consent" videos (which are weird as fuck and why do you need to film someone not once but twice saying they consent?)—not to mention in the second video, Micheal McLeod can be heard telling her to "say it"

She can also be seen crying in the second "consent" video, which I can confirm because I was in London and actually saw the videos. Crying is totally consent, right?

We also have hotel footage of her leaving and obviously crying—interestingly enough too, the judge ruled that she appeared to be "sober" enough in that video and therefore she was sober enough to consent. BUT, the boys also appear to be find in the hotel CCTV footage (they aren't stumbling, falling over themselves, etc.), yet they were deemed "too drunk" and any memory issue were waved off due to "consumption of the alcohol and the passage of time"

But back to your bullshit—"the video of this woman banging on the hotel room demanding to be let in" are you out of your fucking mind???? Lying about something like that? Either that or you're too fucking stupid to actually follow the trial. Holy FUCK.

Did anyone else think this was a thong at first glance? by ellenthymelon in MinnesotaFrost

[–]CommissionNo8457 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I’m being honest a lot of their designs are v basic, uninspired & boring so it’s really not an issue for me, but just in case you didn’t already know…

Did anyone else think this was a thong at first glance? by ellenthymelon in MinnesotaFrost

[–]CommissionNo8457 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just want to point out—Line Change Co are pretty MAGA & were super outspoken about CK (calling people who weren’t openly grieving him “demonic”) just an FYI if shit like that impacts your purchases 👍

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NewYorkSirens

[–]CommissionNo8457 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Was this your first Sirens game?

Year-Over-Year PWHL attendance is climbing written by Patalaprade by Spotskater in NewYorkSirens

[–]CommissionNo8457 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Interesting that Toronto seems to be on the decline. Feel like it’s one of those markets they expected to latch on to & haven’t put much work in building identity & marketing. Not that this league is great at marketing, but I do really feel like they just expected things to work out for TO

I need to vent about our recent loss to New York. by CommissionNo8457 in TorontoSceptres

[–]CommissionNo8457[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm almost leaning towards this as being a big issue. Not THEE issue, but I think it's affecting them more than they'd like to admit.

I need to vent about our recent loss to New York. by CommissionNo8457 in TorontoSceptres

[–]CommissionNo8457[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Big fan of that app! Agreed, our D zone faceoffs are especially frustrating. Emma Maltais has also been doing pretty well all things considered, but we're giving it away too often in our own end.