Swedish NHLers Andreas Lilja, Henrik Tallinder and Kristian Huselius have been banned from playing in the 2006 Turin Olympics because of a rape charge hanging over their heads. The accusation came from a 22-year-old woman who accused them of the deed on February 9 of this year; the trio claims that the sex was consensual. The investigation was dropped on February 11 due to a lack of evidence, police stated, but the case has been reopened by a special prosecutor who does not yet know if charges will be pressed. The players were also dropped from the Swedish national team prior to the World Championships. While I'm not going to make a Guilty or Not Guilty call on their behalf - anyone who comes from a town with junior hockey knows that the relations between players and puck bunnies can get pretty messed-up - I still find it ridiculous that the mere accusation was enough to get these players booted from next year's Olympics, especially considering that police dropped the case two days later because of a lack of evidence. (Admittedly, Sweden is a huge hockey nation, and the possibility exists that the police didn't want to punish three national stars, but while that is grounds for further investigation in itself, it shouldn't be enough to get these guys dropped from a tournament to take place next year.)
In less disturbing news, it looks like a rival league - the International Hockey Association - could be ready to spring to life. Players are apparently deciding on whether to work with Canadian diplomat Maurice Strong and former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani on the project, which would need something in the neighbourhood of $5 billion US to get off the ground. Several rival leagues have been proposed - the most noticeable to this date being a reincarnated WHA - but the players appear to be taking the IHA at least somewhat seriously. We'll see what happens.
Update: The charges of rape against Huselius, Lilja, and Tallinder have been dropped, but investigations into suspicion of sexual exploitation - a more minor sex crime in Sweden - have been pursued, as of June 10. There was no evidence to support the rape claim whatsoever, and another contributing factor was undoubtedly when the woman, who claimed to have been drugged, was proven to have had no unusual substances in her system at the time of the supposed rape.
The three players' one-year ban by the Swedish Hockey Federation - which became effective on June 1 - has not been dropped.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"You get excited about everything. You get excited when your breakfast arrives." -- NHL on TSN host James Duthie, to analyst Pierre McGuire
Followers
Blog Archive
2 comments:
I'd love to know how much they had to pay to make the evidence "disappear".
Those three are the scum of the earth.
It's unbelievable that there are people who are willing to justify and rationalize their actions.
Eternal shame on you, Mr. blogger.
Oh, and I KNOW you won't publish this. But just so you know, there are still decent people out there.
I don't think I justified or rationalized anything here. I didn't say they were innocent - in fact, I specifically said "I'm not going to make a Guilty or Not Guilty call on their behalf". What I thought didn't make sense - five years ago, by the way - was that even though the case was dropped, they were still barred from playing in the Turin Olympics (8 months away at that point) for the mere accusation of wrongdoing. And let's not forget that part of what brought down the rape case was the fact that their accuser claimed she had been drugged, yet there were no traces of any unusual substances in her system.
Could they have been guilty? Of course they could have. And I also pointed out that since Sweden is so hockey-mad, the police could have been avoiding punishing national stars; I then pointed out - again, I'm quoting my original post - "that is grounds for further investigation in itself". So obviously, my hope was and is that the Swedish authorities did everything they could to investigate before dropping the case; I'm pretty sure that this puts me beyond reproach. But I stand firm in my belief that they shouldn't have been barred from the Olympics without some kind of proof of wrongdoing. If there have been any developments in the case in the last five years, and they were proven guilty, then swift punishment should absolutely have followed.
Again, I wrote this post five years ago, so if there was a development in the case since then, it obviously changes things. But if not, and if you judge and punish people based on accusations, then I'm not so sure that you're one of the "decent people" you so clearly believe you are.
Post a Comment