Ehm, she doesn't speak english and doesn't know this words. If I will make an interview with you in russian you may end up being responsible for Chernobyl, WW2, Tungus meteorite, native siberian peoples exctinction and bad vodka I had yesterday.
Red marks are usually from clothes. Maybe he was holding her or maybe he was restraining her. We don't know.
I'll rephrase : he can serve his NHL suspension (when he's not under contract to any NHL team) in the KHL?
I'm asking, because suspensions usually results in players not being paid (and their salary being transferred into some kind of fund). So he'll basically escape that part of the penalty.
Ohhhh so she just started speaking random English words and they just happened to land together saying her husband punched, kicked, choked and smashed in her face?
What a coincidence!!
Dude, we argue with my wife, sometimes there is screaming. Mostly from her though.
The marks can be recieved accidentially. This is a fact.
Neighbours saw nothing. Heard some screaming in russian from 2 drunk individuals. Not a good evidence of "kicking, smashing etc"
So Kuznetsov shouldn't play for 4 years in the NHL?
I'm interested in this from an academic point of view - does a player have to be under contract to serve a suspension like this one? I'd think it signing a contract and not playing would be difficult - how would a foreign player get a visa to serve a suspension?
I think the question is academic, though bc I'm pretty certain he'll never play in the NHL again.
Yeah but her face and neck were good evidence of kicking and smashing seeing as how he got convicted soooooo keep dying on this hill. You look fantastic darling! Slayyyyyy
This is exactly what I'm interested in, too. I don't care much about Voynov specifically, but I'm really curious as to whether a player who is not under an NHL contract can be serving an NHL suspension, and if there's any difference in the case where the player is a RFA.
Yes, he got convicted. Yaroslav Popovich also got convicted for rape and kill of his cousin, and then 9 years after turned out he was not guilty, as she was a victim of a famous maniac. Court conviction doesn't mean guilt all the times.
If it proves my point, why not?Right, the "some other person who was convicted was actually innocent" defence.
If it proves my point, why not?
The victim seemed to have gotten over it much faster than everyone else.
I agree. However, they should not be in positions where they can be idolized by young people who tend to be influenced by their idols. He can work with whatever for all I care, but no need to let him back into the NHL.I think this attitude's problematic, though. While people make mistakes, I also don't think they should label them for the rest of their lives.
Consider the case of someone who is serving a drug suspension (PED or otherwise). If such a player didn't have a contract, it's quite possible requiring a player to have a contract in order to serve a suspension would create a situation where that player was effectively frozen out of the league. That strikes me as being unfairly punitive. That thinking has zero to do with my view about Voynov.
*Accidentally* killed his teammate seems to be the word you keep omitting.
You think Heatley thought to himself, “I’m going to purposely smash this car and risk my life so my friend dies!”
Because Voynov DID think “I’m going to smash my Wife’s face and do major damage to her”.
Once again, hope you could see the difference.
You don’t accidentally drive 80 in a 35.
He does not.
I think he's guilty but I also think he deserves a second chance.
We hand out sentences in law.
He didn't get a life sentence, so I'm not sure why we're supposed to act like he deserves one.
You don't have to like him, but I don't think you can exclude him from employment after he serves his sentence.
...But you can't really force a team to sign him either.
(You're smart, so I know you weren't implying this; and, since I'm smart, you'll reckon that I'm not adovcating for collusion)
and if he ran over a kid? he didn't meant to though......great logic.You’re right. He was an idiot. Does that mean he MEANT to do harm to himself and Snyder?
Again, you can’t understand the difference between purposely harming someone and accidentally doing so through a stupid choice?
and if he ran over a kid? he didn't meant to though......great logic.
and if he ran over a kid? he didn't meant to though......great logic.