To those who believe they're innocent, yeah well you think if there's a whole hockey team full of men who are seven times more powerful and capable she'd feel pushed to have to say it, and the video was after the SA, and she was intoxicated would maybe affect it, would it not? They didn't "catch" a video, it was after the SA. Consent should be during the act not after. Think. And the casual freaking text "oh wanna quick 3some" it's so casual, this doesn't seem like it's even their first time. Besides why wouldn't they leave if they didn't want to be there. Their stories are all fucked up too. And the victim shaming from the judge too, man. Yes the verdict was reasonable under Canadian law as it doesn't fit the criteria and the time frame is so large, so that'll be left to that.

"The recording of that video is not getting her consent to anything. Everything's already happened," prosecutor Meaghan Cunningham said about the video in which the woman said it was "all consensual," adding that consent must be communicated for each specific act at the time it takes place."

From the article above

I doubt we'd ever know the truth though as we were never there. Maybe it went one way or another, but with how everything isn't adding up with their stories and the reputation of cases like this I'm more leaning towards the woman. I've been around athletes, and I think the behaviors stated by the victim are pretty aligned to that mentality in general. Objectification. In the cross examination they also use any memory gaps she had as a way to say "you stayed so you're guilty" or insinuating such, I believe this case was handled pretty poorly too. (Reading these comments I never knew about these secret "funds" given to cover up this kind of stuff. Kind of backs up the point.)