Former CFL player Euclid Cummings facing four criminal charges/ contract voided

Can't believe there hasn't been a thread on this situation yet. Seems like an absolute mess.

If you're going to void the contract now, why was he allowed to play last year and sign a contract in February? What a poorly handled situation.

I posted the above link a day ago on Euclid Cummings issue in Winnipeg Forum.

Very strange indeed. It will be interesting to hear the explanation.

How does someone charged with such serious violent crime in BC in April, though still not guilty unless and until that is determined in court, manage to have such information as would be of public record hidden until February?

Any one of us can't hide anything of public record about us, or posted on the internet otherwise, for too long.

The cover-up stinks on its own whether he's guilty or not guilty.

If you were related to or knew the victims of sexual violence, wouldn't you want better assurance from government on such a matter after it has been determined by a prosecutor that the jurisdiction will bring forth criminal charges?

The league did well at least to act now, but it's only well after the horse got out of the barn last April.

I tend to think it was likely the perfect storm and caused it to slip through the cracks. Outgoing commish, Hervey displaced as a GM in Edmonton...any other time it likely does get caught. We saw with Cox last season, as an example, stuff came out and boom he was gone.

I recall reading that his team was contacted in 2016 and made aware but charges had not been pressed....not much the Bombers could do at that time as he was a FA anyways and without charges what can they do really?

I am still rather torn on this kind of stuff. Don't get me wrong, I love that the CFL has adopted zero tolerance towards domestic violence and such, but I hate that there is no burden of proof and someone is out of a job. Not calling the person filing the charges in these instances a liar, not at all, but shouldn't it be proven? That whole innocent until proven guilty theory. Most people know of a story of someone who was accused of something like this and was cleared of does happen that vindictive people intentionally ruin someone. I know of one CFL person that this ended their career and while they were involved in domestic violence it was actually the other side that was doing it and the only action by that person was restraining and protecting...their career was still ruined.

I am trying to find the story...maybe 6 months ago a rather well known reporter (name is escaping me at the moment...hopefully I find it later) said that 30 or so years ago a woman accused him of stuff. He stepped away from his career, called BS and fought it....she eventually admitted that it was all a lie and she was trying to hurt him out of spite. He was married at the time and almost lost his family over something that never happened, and it nearly ended his career. He said if that was to happen now to him he would have been hiding from social media and an insta pounce news world that verifies little. Sure...he probably wins it but the damage is done...his battle was like 1.5 years or something. Look at the names falling right now. If one of them gets proven totally innocent the damage is already largely done.

That is where the unease with this stuff comes for me. The extremely vast majority of these accusations are 100% accurate, but there are instances they are not. 2 years down the road as a football player you are found not guilty/cleared...your career is still likely over.

Tough spot.

What if a coworker walked into work and reported you tomorrow and you were canned by lunch? If you are guilty...don't let the door hit you on the way out. What if you are not? There are a lot of really bad crimes people don't lose their employment over until they are found guilty.

If you think this was handled poorly... go back and see if you can find a thread on Trevis Smith... I doubt it, but it was a mess from start to finish.

I am kind of wondering what was going on in Euclid's head when he signed in BC last month. Maybe he likes it out here, as the alleged incident took place two days after the Bombers played at BC Place.

But if you knew you were facing criminal charges and were due before the courts in October, would you want to (try to) play in the jurisdiction in which it allegedly occured or get as far away from the place as possible?!?

I want to see better leadership from Ambrosie on this as it's not going away. The league of course gave the obligatory "can't comment on something that's before the courts" statement. Meanwhile he's tweeting today about his great workout at #CFLgind.

Get on this one, Commish!

Great post depopulationINC. Sums up my feelings on things as well. Cases like this are tricky , and I'm really not sure what the solution is.

I just wish it was treated with a little more transparency by the league. Hopefully the media keeps pressure on Ambroise to clarify what exactly happened here.

What do you want to see Ambrosie to do here. Be more vocal about it?

As depop and letsgoticats have said..I'm torn here as well He's been charged but not convicted. Tommie Campbell was charged with a fairly major drug bust awhile back. Calgary stuck with him and he was cleared. Should a charge mean an auto firing? As I say I'm torn on this issue as it feels a bit like a dangerous overreaction in these days.

Doesn't it depend on the charge? If a guy is charged with jaywalking then voiding his contract is going too far. However, if he's charged with a violent crime and there is strong evidence to support the charge then perhaps voiding the contract is prudent given that the might not actually be available to play.

There can't be a one-size-fits-all answer to the problem.

Yes. He can start by sharing with his constituents, sponsors, fans, and stakeholders how a player charged with a sex crime last April (that was initially brought to the league's attention by the Blue Bombers BTW) was allowed to play an entire season.

Then when another team (British Columbia) signs this player as a free agent, they are suddenly dinged with the $70,000 signing bonus that will count against the team’s cap. And before anyone says, "Hervey must have known," what possible reason would he have for bringing negative attention to his club, losing the player he signed, and the opportunity cost of not using that money on other problem-free FAs he could have signed?

Short of a Ray Rice video, who gets to make the judgement? Seems to me that this is what courts are for, not employers.

I guess the only way to be consistent here is:
-no player will be allowed to play if charged with a felony
-any player charged with a felony can play until found guilty in a court of law

It was a great post, and I feel the same too. All the same the question has not been answered as to why even information of public record, as in the charge, was covered up. We all know someone is not guilty until proven otherwise in a court of law. Usually that sort of cover-up or even looking the other way is a red flag too.

Transparency is amiss, and that's the problem I see here whatever ultimately the verdict.

You use Ray Rice as an example, and if you mean his name as a metaphor for the matters of sexual violence and domestic violence, I think the professional sports leagues have decided to weigh in early before the courts. As an example of how to do it wrong and days bygone, the matter of Greg Hardy in the NFL was an even worse situation than Ray Rice and preceded him.

Oh if it were only that simple. The matters of sexual violence and domestic violence, given so much abuse and cover-ups over the years, have been game changers in recent years. The leagues are not going to take the publicity hit, and advertiser lumps that come with hits to publicity, for the sake of one charged player nowadays.


Innocent until proven guilty? Not for public figures. That's a sentimental notion from another era.

Nowadays, it's innocent until accused. Rightly or wrongly, the stakes are just too high for professional sports leagues to keep someone employed while it goes through due process. Ezekiel Elliot is a prime example. I said the only way to be consistently is to develop a policy that says:

A: No contract if charged with a felony
B: Can play until a negative court ruling

So you think A is the way to go given the current climate?

I'm going to say option A with the following conditions given especially the prevalence of social media.

It's just not as easy to cover things up any more and when things are covered up, the associated corruption is well over the top any more.

Contracts ought to be suspended, not voided, until due process runs its course for players being charged with certain felonies and with at least one of the following conditions in place.

I'm thinking out loud here and probably not covering every scenario as could involve violent felonies.

If a player is charged with certain felonies of a violent nature, at least one of the following should also be at hand before the league moves to act on the charges itself:

i) There is video evidence of the actual illegal physical contact by the player whether or not admissible in court.

ii) There is video evidence of a clear threat of violence against at least one party captured also on audio (i.e. "I'm going to kill you" stated in a threatening voice is different than "I wish you'd die!") also whether or not admissible in court.

iii) There is evidence of the unlawful possession of any given weapon or explosive by the player, or any given item being used as a weapon or explosive (i.e. bat, broken bottle, chair, bottle rocket, et cetera), with the allegation by at least one party and with at least one witness of a violent threat having been made or action taken by the player when in possession of the weapon, explosive, or item used as such. Such a situation is common in any given bar fight scenario for example.

Failing any of the above evidence, due process should run its course before the league acts to suspend a contract.

It's unlikely that anybody charged with an Indictable Offence would be reliably available to fulfill his contract.