Riders release Messam

[maxlion]

The CFL would be better off to have a fair and consistent policy, such as: any player charged with a crime will be suspended pending the outcome of the legal proceedings. Players found not guilty will be reinstated immediately. Players found guilty will have their contracts voided.

I think the problem with that is that in most situations the timeline between an incident occurring, a charge being laid and any trial actually concluding would exceed the length of the contract. Messam's current deal is for one year. Unless his docket is put on top of the pile he contract will expire before anybody knows if he's innocent or guilty. How do you reinstate someone to an expired contract? The CFL certainly couldn't enforce the old deal back on the Riders.

Good point. My proposed solution is too simple. But there are a number of variables that could be used to make it fair for both sides. I don't quite understand why the player's association haven't made an issue of this, or why players affected haven't taken legal action against the league.

[KnowItAll]

The CFL would be better off to have a fair and consistent policy, such as: any player charged with a crime will be suspended pending the outcome of the legal proceedings. Players found not guilty will be reinstated immediately. Players found guilty will have their contracts voided.

how would that address someone obviously guilty but being found not guilty due to a technicality

[Belize City Lion]

"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't matter at the team level. A team can cut a player for any reason (or for no reason). "We've decided to go in a different direction"... "he doesn't fit with what we are trying to do"... "it's a salary cap decision".... take your pick and waive the player buh-bye.

Now legally speaking, the CFL could be exposed for black-listing a player who is eventually acquitted. But in order for a player to prove that a ban from the league is causing harm to them the player would have to have a team willing to sign him. That's highly unlikely to happen in the Messam situation. Maybe 2 or 3 years ago, but not now.

[maxlion]

"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't matter at the team level. A team can cut a player for any reason (or for no reason). "We've decided to go in a different direction"... "he doesn't fit with what we are trying to do"... "it's a salary cap decision".... take your pick and waive the player buh-bye.

Now legally speaking, the CFL could be exposed for black-listing a player who is eventually acquitted. But in order for a player to prove that a ban from the league is causing harm to them the player would have to have a team willing to sign him. That's highly unlikely to happen in the Messam situation. Maybe 2 or 3 years ago, but not now.

Exactly. In a league with no guaranteed contracts, players can get cut for myriad reasons not directly related to on-field play, including not fitting in with the dressing room culture or whatever.

But for the league or, more specifically, Ambrosie, to say--arbitrarily, without going through any due process--that a player can't sign with any team makes them vulnerable to legal action.

I don't personally care if they do get sued. I just think that their position is untenable.

[Toppy Vann]

What I find interesting with the CFL knee jerk reaction with Messam is two things:
1. he's no longer a big star and clearly his role in the Sask offense this year was being diminished and he comes with a bit of baggage (bar and locker room fights back pre-CFL and in his years with BC where he allegedly broke Paris Jackson's jaw. This incident was kept quiet by the Lions for a long time.

2. They didn't toss out James Lawson from the Board of Governors of the CFL (nor should they have) when he was accused of a list of issues. In fact, prior to new Commissioner he was the Acting Commissioner IIRC that correctly back on 2017.

Lawson - a highly regarded Governor, businessman and community guy was accused of a litany of charges that I suspect most fans other than those who read the Financial Times would have even heard of - as most of us looked at it as a weird out of character set of accusations of a man who clearly is admired by all.

Financial Post August 24, 2017
https://business.financialpost.com/news ... o-be-messy

Messy dispute between Canada's richest woman and chair of the CFL goes to trial Sept. 11

Thomson heiress Sherry Brydson, the executive chair of investment company Westerkirk Capital, fired James Lawson, the CFL chair who formerly ran the investment company, five years ago

"The richest woman in Canada (Sherry Brydson) and the chair of the Canadian Football League (James Lawson) appear to be digging in their heels and priming their legal teams for what promises to be a very messy civil trial in Toronto next month, replete with allegations of self-dealing, forgery and downloads of “hard porn.”

...
I heard and saw nothing on fan forums nor a lot of outcries from the sports writers to oust this guy as they put these allegations in the context of a guy with an outstanding reputation in business and the community versus a now aging RB whose best years were likely behind him.

There was this story:

CFL chairman accused of circulating pornography at his former office
Jim Lawson is suing the richest woman in Canada for wrongful dismissal.
The resulting revelations have not made him look good.

http://thecomeback.com/nfl/cfl-chairman ... ffice.html

The counterclaim further alleges that Lawson had an assistant at Westerkirk forge his signature, and that he “utilized his office to indulge himself in hard core racist and misogynistic pornography.”

None of the allegations made by either party have been proven in court.

Lawson, who in addition to his CFL duties is chief executive at Woodbine Entertainment Corp., a horse racetrack and slot machine complex in Toronto, has denied most of the allegations, though he admits he asked an associate to sign his name and that he forwarded pornography via email.

Upon being fired, top exec paid himself $4.9M without telling boss, Canada's richest woman
Sam Pazzano
Published:
September 14, 2017

“This ($4.9 million payout) was contrary to Westerkirk’s interests both because there was cause (to fire him) and because the amount vastly exceeded any potential entitlement,” stated Brydson’s lawyer, Howard Levitt, in court documents.

The trial of Lawson’s wrongful-dismissal and Brydson’s countersuit was scheduled to open in a Toronto courtroom Wednesday, but lawyers for both sides spent all morning in closed meetings. The case is scheduled to resume Monday before Justice Peter Cavanagh.

https://torontosun.com/2017/09/13/upon- ... 2b6656b155

It was a wrongful dismissal with counter claims by Brysdon set for trial Sept 2017 and settled after the trial began. There were no criminal charges as when you read what it was it was purely bad judgment - maybe like we'll find out with Messam perhaps.


Bitter legal battle involving Canada’s richest woman ends with a whimper: DiManno
By ROSIE DIMANNOColumnist
Mon., Sept. 18, 2017

So we’re back where we started: Boxes of legal wrangle filed over the past four years, stuffed with facts and fomentation — a litany of allegations that will never be proved or disproved in a courtroom.

(This is the part where we in the media note: None of the allegations have been tested in court. It’s all factum hearsay.)

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/0 ... manno.html

Update – September 19, 2017: Westerkirk Capital Inc. and James J. Lawson announced Sept. 18 that legal proceedings between them have been discontinued and are at end.

Here is the statement:

“Mr. Lawson has apologized unreservedly to Ms. Brydson for the circumstances that led to his departure from Westerkirk. Mr. Lawson has also unequivocally withdrawn all prior allegations made by him involving Ms. Brydson, her family, employees and advisors in the legal proceedings and otherwise.

None of the parties to these proceedings nor any of their representatives will be making any further comment regarding these matters.”

[maxlion]

The CFL would be better off to have a fair and consistent policy, such as: any player charged with a crime will be suspended pending the outcome of the legal proceedings. Players found not guilty will be reinstated immediately. Players found guilty will have their contracts voided.

how would that address someone obviously guilty but being found not guilty due to a technicality

As far as I understand, a legal "technicality" is a requirement of the law which is in place to protect the rights of citizens. Evidence establishing guilt must be prepared in accordance with these requirements.

I think that you are talking about cases in which people are presumed guilty based on media reports of "evidence" that does not meet the tests set out by the legal system. I don't put much stock in this kind of conviction.

[Lui05]

Toppy, in my original post, I was relying on other posts regarding "code of conduct". If no such morality clause actually exists in the contracts that are signed then I would agree, there is opportunity for lawsuit. But as Belize City Lion said, CFL can dismiss you for a variety of vague reasons.

While I am posting from outside the country, I'm Canadian and spent my whole life their until 2001, so my perspective is coming from that as a Canadian. That said, I'm going to agree to disagree with you on your interpretation of the scope of the presumption of innocence. From a law perspective, I think it's evident you have more knowledge and possess many more facts than I do so I concede that your position is more correct. But from a reality/practicality perspective, the general public is under no such constraint to espouse their opinions, and businesses are also clearly unaffected by this tenet of democratic society in making firing decisions.

In the end, at least Messam is accused of actually doing something really creepy and is being punished (although prematurely) for that.

To take this to the next level of "where does the line in the sand get drawn", I'm curious what you think of the premise that once you reach a certain level of leadership, you are now responsible for the behavior of others? As you may guess, I'm talking about Urban Meyer, the head coach of Ohio State, who has been placed on administrative leave (prior to his inevitable firing, I believe), because his wife knew about the beatings his assistant coach was giving to his (the assistant coach's now ex) wife.

In this case, the accused isn't accused of doing anything illegal. He's accused of possibly knowing about somebody else doing something illegal and not reporting it. As with Messam, I have no idea what is or isn't in his contract so I won't continue the mistake I made in my original post where I thought I did.

Anyhow, just curious what you think. If this is off-topic and not relevant to the thread, please just ignore.

[KnowItAll]

The CFL would be better off to have a fair and consistent policy, such as: any player charged with a crime will be suspended pending the outcome of the legal proceedings. Players found not guilty will be reinstated immediately. Players found guilty will have their contracts voided.

how would that address someone obviously guilty but being found not guilty due to a technicality

As far as I understand, a legal "technicality" is a requirement of the law which is in place to protect the rights of citizens. Evidence establishing guilt must be prepared in accordance with these requirements.

I think that you are talking about cases in which people are presumed guilty based on media reports of "evidence" that does not meet the tests set out by the legal system. I don't put much stock in this kind of conviction.

naah, I am talking about when the evidence is clear that a person is guilty but the case is thrown out because the cops did something wrong, or similar situations

[Sir Purrcival]

I think maybe a more nuanced solution is required here. Teams have to balance their need for a clean image with a player's right to earn a living and presumption of innocence. This isn't the kind of living where you might a lose a year and then be able to come back and work for the next 40. You might only have 1 go round here and something like a charge could unfairly damage your chances of ever working again. Especially if the charge is unfounded. It might make more sense for the league and the players to contribute to a fund that would allow a charged player to be suspended but paid at least for the balance of a season. At least in that way, if the legalities are cleared up, the player has not had to suffer financially for the time off. We do it with RCMP in some cases for freaking years, why not in the CFL?

[Hambone]

I think maybe a more nuanced solution is required here. Teams have to balance their need for a clean image with a player's right to earn a living and presumption of innocence. This isn't the kind of living where you might a lose a year and then be able to come back and work for the next 40. You might only have 1 go round here and something like a charge could unfairly damage your chances of ever working again. Especially if the charge is unfounded. It might make more sense for the league and the players to contribute to a fund that would allow a charged player to be suspended but paid at least for the balance of a season. At least in that way, if the legalities are cleared up, the player has not had to suffer financially for the time off. We do it with RCMP in some cases for freaking years, why not in the CFL?

How do you quantify that sort of thing though? Messam is a 9 year vet in decline. Certainly he seemed to be holding a diminished role. He might be a prime candidate to be released before his contract was guaranteed. Cummings has been in the league for about 4 years. Next guy in this situation might be a backup of some experience or maybe a rookie hanging on to a roster spot by a thread.

[Sir Purrcival]

I think maybe a more nuanced solution is required here. Teams have to balance their need for a clean image with a player's right to earn a living and presumption of innocence. This isn't the kind of living where you might a lose a year and then be able to come back and work for the next 40. You might only have 1 go round here and something like a charge could unfairly damage your chances of ever working again. Especially if the charge is unfounded. It might make more sense for the league and the players to contribute to a fund that would allow a charged player to be suspended but paid at least for the balance of a season. At least in that way, if the legalities are cleared up, the player has not had to suffer financially for the time off. We do it with RCMP in some cases for freaking years, why not in the CFL?

How do you quantify that sort of thing though? Messam is a 9 year vet in decline. Certainly he seemed to be holding a diminished role. He might be a prime candidate to be released before his contract was guaranteed. Cummings has been in the league for about 4 years. Next guy in this situation might be a backup of some experience or maybe a rookie hanging on to a roster spot by a thread.

I guess that the simple way to deal with it would be for the league to decide if these are suspendable acts. If the league says a suspension is warranted, then so be it. I know there might be some problems but in the end, I guess if a team decides to cut someone after charges are announced, it is pretty suspect to say that they were about to cut him. By the same token, since things like this reflect on the league as whole, does it make sense to have individual teams deciding to suspend or not? Suppose for example, a team has a player who is up on some kind of charges but who is critical to the team. Let's say a Bo Levi Mitchell just for giggles. Do you think that Calgary might be looking for ways to minimize or somehow avoid suspending him indefinitely or cutting him outright? I'm not saying they would but you can see how a team might try to have a different standard for one player vs another depending on that player's perceived value to the team.

The larger point here is that in most other professions, charges don't necessarily precluded continued employment. Nor in most case is that employment time sensitive. In professions where it does, then usually some kind of provision is made for continued pay. League salaries being what they are, wouldn't represent a huge financial burden for the balance of season even if the player was to be cut. Especially if the players kick in to a fund especially created for the purpose. Bear in mind too that a sudden loss of pay usually has other victims as well. Spouses, children, all can be affected negatively so while it might be tempting to put a end to all, right away, being seen to stand for something doesn't always make the action the right one.

[Blitz]

Its a very interesting topic. Presumption of innocence is a basic tenant of criminal law. But CFL players and coaches are operating under contract law, where the concept of owners dealing with coaches and players and vice versa, in 'good faith' is the basic tenet.

Morality clauses in contracts for coaches and players have been around now for quite a while. Morality clauses, as they are sometimes called, are often written as 'good conduct' or 'public image' clauses. In some contracts they are quite narrow while in others they are quite broad.

For example, some coaching contracts have clauses such as the "commission of or participation by Coach of any act, situation, or occurrence which, in the team's judgment brings the coach into public disrepute, contempt, scandal or ridicule, or any personal conduct to conventional standards of good citizenship, with such conduct offending prevailing social mores and values and/or reflecting unfavorably upon the team's reputation' are grounds for contract termination.

College coaches in the U.S. have been fired for having had a sexual affair on their wife or after being videotaped drinking a beer at a party, with female party goers, after a loss.

Player contracts are often written in such a way that it is the 'franchise' that solely determines what is acceptable conduct that can impact the team 'in any way'. Want to get rid of a coach or hire a better one, without paying out the rest of his contract - this is one way to do it.

The vagueness and breadth of what a 'good conduct' or 'public image' clause can cover has led to disputes and litigation in courts in the U.S.

It's also very difficult for a Court to to determine what actions cause public disrepute, scandal, contempt, or would shock, insult, or offend the public or even a group (often termed invidious distinction).

Players and coaches are viewed as investments. Teams sign contracts with players and coaches, in hopes of using their skills or reputations to generate revenue and achieve success.

However, these 'investments' come with risks, exacerbated by a 24-hour news and sports news cycle, as well as the growth of social media, and this has led to franchises seeking a way out of their relationship with players or coaches.

In other words, coaches are not just judged on their play calls and players are not just judged on their play on the field. They can even have a contract voided for 'any behavior which adversely affect the reputation of the franchise in any way'.

Its a very broad or 'loose' term and could even be applied to a player or coach's Twitter or Facebook account comment, a post game interview comment, etc.

The employer could make the argument that any behavior or comment, on or off the field, that negatively impacts potential revenue violates the contract. Players and coaches public images are considered an important factor in terms of positive or negative revenue and that reputation extends to almost every aspect of their life.

Advertisers who enter into contracts with players or coaches also utilize these 'public image' or 'good conduct' clauses.

Morals clauses have become standard in most sports contracts, partially because sports professionals face extensive scrutiny in the media and social media. The clauses also usually include any past behavior, which enablers employers to terminate employees for previous indiscretions that were not disclosed.

Heck, even as Lionbackers, we operate under a good conduct clause regarding our behavior with regards to other posters.

While they are not very common, some coaches and players are asking for reverse good conduct clauses in contracts.

Because its very difficult for a coach or player to void a contract, these clauses allow a coach or player to sign a long term contract and void it if the employer (franchise) engages in behavior that negatively would impact his potential revenue. Eg: say the owner was involved in a scandal, which impacted the player or coaches opportunity for future endorsement deals because advertisers did not want to be associated with the franchise.

The reality is that player contracts are not worth the paper they are written on. The franchise can cut the player at any time. The same does not hold true for a player. He cant' quit and go play for another team whenever he chooses.

But where it can get sticky, is when a franchise voids a players contract, based upon a 'good conduct or 'public image' clause rather than just cutting that player while not citing a reason.

If a player is released, based upon a 'good conduct', 'morality' or 'public image' clause, then it provides the player with the opportunity to litigate, if he believes that he has not violated the good conduct clause or the clause in his contract has been applied too broadly.

There are a lot of crazies out there, or vindictive types, or people who are just plain devious and evil. Not every accusation has merit. Not every criminal case that is brought to court should have been prosecuted in the first place either.

I agree with Toppy Van's statement that::

The purpose of the presumption of innocence is to protect the fundamental liberty and human dignity of the accused. The person faces "grave social and personal consequences" from the law and so needs protection.

I also agree with maxlion's comment that:

When it comes to decisions affecting a person's livelihood, it is best to have a policy that is fair, consistent, and transparent. The CFL's "policy" on players facing criminal charges is none of these. I do suspect there is some payment for being released without just cause going to the players who have been affected. I expect the CFL to be challenged in court over this at some point (as they should be)".

maxlion adds in a later post:

But there are a number of variables that could be used to make it fair for both sides. I don't quite understand why the player's association haven't made an issue of this, or why players affected haven't taken legal action against the league".

It really comes down to a contractual issue. If players are signing contracts with their teams (and registered and approved, and also with contract language that was likely written by the league), that have good conduct or public image clauses, then it is up to the Players Association to negotiate clear contract language around a player who is charged with a criminal offence but has not yet gone to trial.

Does the player continue to play until found guilty, or is he suspended with pay until found guilty, or is his pay placed into a trust until a court determination of innocence or guilt is made, etc. etc.

The Players Association also needs to negotiate clear language around use of social media by players as to what constitutes 'good conduct' (or not). It also needs to negotiate clear language as to what constitutes acceptable 'public image' (or not).

Right now, it appears as if teams are getting players to sign contracts that allow them to easily release a player and void a contract and also to release a player based upon 'good conduct' and 'public image' clauses in their contracts.

Coaches are usually a lot smarter. Say goodbye to a coach and the team usually has to pay out the remaining time on his contract. He will have that in his contract. But a coach could also easily be let go, without any future pay, based on a good conduct or public image clause.

This situation (and others like it) fall under the umbrella of employment law and contract law more than the rights of the accused. Contract law is based upon an offer and acceptance of an offer in good faith by both parties. The contract does not even have to be fair or equitable.

In the big picture, I've always thought that CFL players contracts are so easily voidable by the franchise whereas its almost impossible for a player to void a contract he has signed. Both parties sit down and sign a contract in good faith and then the team can easily renegotiate or walk away from it while the player can't (and different leagues honor each other's contracts too).

Its a market system that favors the owners and most players are viewed as replaceable commodities, as there is an endless supply. But players have come a long way from the old days when most were paid peanuts while owners put most of the revenue money in their pockets.

But back to point - this is an issue for the Players Association, in terms of contract language.

[Toppy Vann]

While the media orignally said it was videotaping a sexual encounter the agreed statement of facts were:

On Nov. 11, 2016, they had dinner together and then had consensual sex at Messam's apartment.

Three months later, Messam sent the woman four 10-second video clips of their sexual encounter on the social media platform Snapchat, which deletes videos after they are played.

The woman made a formal complaint to police and the CFL in April 2018. Messam had his contract with the Saskatchewan Roughriders terminated after he was charged in July 2019.

I guess he's working with kids now from these stories and I guess that will end with his conviction for a sexual crime.



Arguments at trial in Nov. 2022:
https://www.sportsnet.ca/cfl/article/b- ... fl-career/

Prosecutor Janice Walsh said jail time isn't appropriate. She recommended a suspended sentence of 18 to 24 months, which would give him a criminal record, followed by probation.

``I'm not asking the court to consider that Mr. Messam's fact pattern is near the far end of the spectrum, but nor is it a mere observation and nor is it at the conditional discharge end of the spectrum,'' Walsh said.

``This falls somewhere in that middle range of sentences, which requires a criminal conviction but does not require the punishment of jail, either in the community or actual jail.''

Walsh rejected suggestions that media attention Messam received after he was charged and the loss of his CFL career should be factors in the sentencing.

Actually in pre-sentence reports (if there is one) judges do factor in remorse, including conduct currently and certainly in non-violent crimes, the loss of reputation such as Messam not able to play in the CFL.

However, the Judge's sentence and reasons for judgment:

“I am satisfied that a conditional discharge is not appropriate in light of the nature and the seriousness of the offence, the significant consequences inherent in it, and the magnitude of what was taken from (the victim) or the need for strong denunciation and deterrence,” said Court of King’s Bench Justice April Grosse, according to Kevin Martin of the Calgary Herald.

“While I have great compassion for Mr. Messam and what he stands to lose without a discharge, I find that a discharge would be contrary to the public interest.”

https://3downnation.com/2022/12/06/form ... onviction/