• FerdaBerta

    I recall Ben Johnson being accused of taking steroids and how there was talk of him at that time being innocent despite all the evidence.

    Looking back, even Lance Armstrong did not get crucified like Johnson was. Probably because Ben is part of the black minority and Armstrong like Kane is protected by white patriarchy. Sadly, Kane’s victim will get no justice. I’m glad you guys are covering this important topic of how woman and other minorities are being unfairly treated.

    Now only if you would have more minority and woman participation in your podcast 😉

    • FerdaBerta

      Nice I love the way you completely disregarded everything the guys said! Its an ongoing investigation and it is not something you should be passing comment on in such a blase way.

  • Gary Empey

    Rape is a very serious charge. In New York it carries sentences of 5 to 25 years of imprisonment.

    It is far different from Ben Johnson and Lance Armstrong taking performance enhancing drugs. Rape is often a very difficult crime to prove. It often comes down to -He said; -She said. In the USA only about five per cent (5%) of rapists are ever convicted in a court of law. That is the reason the police are taking their time trying to do a thorough investigation of bite marks, DNA, witnesses, etc.

    Why anyone would bring social politics concerning minorities into the conversation has no merit.

    Why would you say “Sadly, Kane’s victim will get no justice.” , while the case is still under preliminary investigation? Sounds like you are saying ” Lets give him a fair trial and then hang him” Where is your justice in that.

    As for Lance Armstrong he was stripped of seven Tour de France titles, given lifetime ban from Olympic sports. He had to step down as chairman of Livestrong, the cancer-fighting charity he founded. He was villified in every european newspaper, where bicyle racing is a major sport. No fewer than seven major sponsors dropped Armstrong, one week after an avalanche of evidence came crashing down upon him. The man was completely disgraced in all the media.

    Your point regarding Ben Johnson does have a ring of truth about it. The attacks on him by the Canadian Media were very personal and very vicious. Was it because he was a media sweetheart and then embarassed them? Or was it racially motivated? Or was it a bit of both?

    • Gary Empey

      Human nature being what it is most people assume the accused must have done it. Very few assume the victim is lying. Really nobody should be assuming anything.

      Why would anyone think “Innocent until proven guilty” implies that the other party is a liar until proven otherwise? All it means is someone doesn’t have to sit in jail while they try to prove they are innocent. (unfortunately if you are poor this is still the case)

      It is true though that if a lawyer can prove a witness has lied it casts a serious doubt on all their testimony. But this comes much later after charges have been laid and the case comes to trial.

      Lets be honest here. As soon as it was leaked that there are bite marks involved the firing squad took the safety off their rifles.

      • MaxPower417

        Really late comment so doubt this will be seen but I just saw this.

        “Innocent until proven guilty” is great for the courtroom, but I’m talking about the court of public opinion.

        In a rape case, it is almost always a binary outcome, either the accuser is telling the truth and a rape occurred (the VAST majority of cases) or the accuser is lying and no rape occurred.

        So by asserting that you believe Kane is innocent until proven otherwise, you are also asserting that you believe that this woman is a liar trying to ruin an innocent mans life until proven otherwise.

        That’s a hell of a position to take. Treating all rape victims as liars is part of the reason why so few victims come forward.

        It seems so innocuous to say you are treating the accused as innocent until proven guilty, but in reality there are severe consequences for this stance, even if you had the best intentions.

        I understand that everyone isn’t comfortable with then assuming guilt until otherwise proven (even though that would be correct approx. 94% of the time) but at the very least I ask that you adjust your verbage slightly to “I won’t make any judgments either way until the facts come to light**”. I’ve heard the term “Schrodinger’s rapist” used. Until we know one way or the other, Kane simultaneously both is and is not a rapist.

        **Of course, the one obvious problem with this compromise is that our justice system is notoriously bad at convicting sex offenders, especially wealthy ones.