The Unknown Poster

Winnipeg Sun Tests from a rape kit lack DNA evidence from Chicago Blackhawks star Patrick Kane to confirm a woman's allegations against him, the Buffalo News reported. Four sources familiar with the case told the newspaper Saturday that there is no DNA evidence in the accuser's genital area or her undergarments. Kane, 26, is accused of sexually assaulting a woman in August at his offseason home near Buffalo, N.Y. He has not been charged in the case. The Erie County district attorney's office delayed grand jury proceedings recently. Kane addressed his ongoing legal issues Thursday when he reported to the team's training camp at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Ind. "This has been an incredibly difficult time for many people," Kane said in his first public comments since police began investigating the allegations. "I cannot apologize enough for the distraction this has caused my family, my teammates, this incredible organization and, of course, our fans. While I have too much respect for the legal process to comment on an ongoing matter, I am confident that once all the facts are brought to light, I will be absolved of having done nothing wrong." Sources told the Buffalo News that Kane's DNA was found on the accuser's fingernails and shoulders, but those sources said the DNA evidence could have occurred from casual contact. Sources told the newspaper that settlement talks were ongoing between the two sides, but Kane's attorney, Paul Cambria, had previously denied any settlement talks. Kane has helped lead the Blackhawks three Stanley Cup championships in the past six seasons and has scored 205 goals in eight NHL seasons. He signed an eight-year, $84 million contract extension in 2014.

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton's lead in the Democratic presidential primary race has grown -- and if Vice President Joe Biden decides to stay out of the race, her numbers would rise even higher, a new CNN/ORC poll shows. Clinton is backed by 42% of Democratic primary voters nationally, compared to 24% for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, 22% for Biden and 1% for former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley. That's a marked improvement over an early September CNN/ORC poll that found Clinton leading Sanders, 37% to 27%, with Biden at 20%. Washington (CNN)Carly Fiorina shot into second place in the Republican presidential field on the heels of another strong debate performance, and Donald Trump has lost some support, a new national CNN/ORC poll shows. The survey, conducted in the three days after 23 million people tuned in to Wednesday night's GOP debate on CNN, shows that Trump is still the party's front-runner with 24% support. That, though, is an 8 percentage point decrease from earlier in the month when a similar poll had him at 32%. Fiorina ranks second with 15% support -- up from 3% in early September. She's just ahead of Ben Carson's 14%, though Carson's support has also declined from 19% in the previous poll. Driving Trump's drop and Fiorina's rise: a debate in which 31% of Republicans who watched said Trump was the loser, and 52% identified Fiorina as the winner. ***Clinton seems the obvious choice for Democrats. I still think Jeb will end up a front runner for the Republicans. Cant say he will get the nomination but he seems the most likely to appeal to the widest audience. Fiorina is intriguing. But all things considered, she might make the best VP to keep the undecided women voters from swinging to Clinton.

Noel was a very experienced coach who had a little bit of NHL HC'ing experience and plenty of pro hockey coaching experience. He was just the wrong coach at the wrong time for the wrong team. I can see why TN hired him. His forte was teaching young hockey players but the Jets needed a different kind of development than the Moose did. Live and learn. Kane still had his best season under Noel. Burmi is a good example of Noel not being able to get the most out of a young player when that was supposed to be his strength. I bet Maurice gets a lot more out of him. Noel also had the habit of switching up his lines at the first sign of trouble. He didnt seem to have answers. Im not sure if he was intimidated by the big star, big contract, big money NHL players but he seemed to lack the "make them f'n cry in the room" aspect that Maurice has. So I wouldnt compare the two scenarios at all. MOS was an inexperienced coach who they thought would bring a young, fresh mind...be a players coach who could motivate his guys to be the very best. I suspect that MOS would be a good coach if everything was going well. But adversity? He doesnt have the answers and, I guess if you want to compare to Noel, he doesnt seem able to go in the LR and make his players f'n cry and hold them accountable.

it makes sense but you have to draw a line. Tillman is a POS and that was before he took a liking to his kid's babysitter.

Ric Flair is the greatest of all time so I'd watch it if it happened. He had a couple of "ok" matches in TNA, the one with Mick Foley standing out. But even he admits he's not in cosmetic shape. But they could use him a lot better. The problem with a "manager" is, if they cant "bump", its hard to get heat on them. Thats why Heenan was moved to the broadcast booth when he was too beat up to keep bumping. And guys like Blassie and Fuji were mostly useless. So Flair being cleared to bump, I'd use him in non-match angles.

I would have said not just "do whatever" but "do whatever...please!" Good for him! Its always a nice ego stroke to know you can still pick up a "teen"

What will the D look like with Ian in? Does Leggett go back to safety?

An alleged attempt to blackmail Florida Panthers winger Jaromir Jagr didn't go as planned. Czech tabloid Blesk reports a photo of the 43-year-old NHLer in bed with an 18-year-old model surfaced on social media over the weekend, though it is unclear how the photo came to be online. The model, named Catherine, took the selfie as Jagr slept in the background. After being discovered online, the image was reportedly used in an effort to extort 50,000 Czech crowns – roughly $2,000 – from Jagr, with the threat the image would be shopped to media if he didn't pay up, according to Blesk. Jagr didn't seem bothered, though. According to a report by Yahoo's Puck Daddy, the two-time Stanley Cup champ told the blackmailer to “do whatever” they wanted with the picture. No surprise, seeing as Jagr is single. Catherine, however, isn't. She is reportedly dating a Czech hockey player.

Okay, Kyle can stay forever

And funny, the Undertaker is only 50 and looks about 15 years older than Sting. The Lawler heart attack really scared WWE off of using older guys, unfortunately. Apparently, the heart attack wasnt even an age-related scenario and he's been cleared to wrestle and does so on the indy scene. Ric Flair worked into his 60's and now, at 66, said he's been medically cleared to wrestle but WWE doesnt want to do that.

I'd argue that story, fan response trumps age. What age should someone stop being considered for champion? 38? 44? 50? He looks younger. I'd have done it for the pop...certainly not long term. When Hogan won the title in 2002, it seemed like a great idea on paper (massively over at the time) but ultimately wasnt. But in this day and age, you could do it. Would pop a rating on RAW (which is needed) and gets you one more PPV buy rate with Sting where he drops it back to....whomever. Its not a big deal either way, but since Sting lost to Hunter, I wouldnt have had him lose again in his second match. If the idea if to monetize Sting, they are going about it the wrong way.

Speculation is Disney will release the original trilogy on Blu Ray, unedited, unLucas'ed. Something I didnt realise though, FOX owns the original six films. They own A New Hope forever and the other five until May 2020. Must have been some deal between Lucas and FOX for FOX to own the films but Lucas maintains ownership of all the characters. Disney and FOX made a deal when they released the films digitally. They will have to strike another deal to release blu-rays. Shame Disney wont get all the films. Cant imagine FOX would ever part with A New Hope. And supposedly, FOX still plans to release Empire and Jedi in 3D...should have done so this summer. Also, Benicio Del Toro is cast in Star Wars VIII which is already filming and includes, potentially, a clean shaven Mark Hamil (spotted at a pub on location without his wizened old Jedi beard).

Assumed Kyle would stop working.

The GM share thing has been discussed before by people who know more than me and I dont think your dislike of the deal holds up. A surplus is a surplus. I know the opposition tried to frame it as the Cons cutting spending which was proven to be a lie. I bet if the NDP won and posted a surplus you wouldnt say its not really a surplus. If Harper's strategy was simply that they had a greater war chest, then thats good strategy.

Wellll, he said he understands his role and is fine with it. Which ofcourse he will be considering he's making good money. It doesnt change the fact they could use him a lot better. I'd have done the nostalgia run for a month to cement Sting as a "WWE" legend as well as WCW. I also think it makes Seth more interesting to lose both his belts especially with the idea he's not as good as Hunter. Its a way to transition Seth face. I assume WWE doesnt want to make him face though. I wont crap all over the story yet...have to see how it unfolds tonight I guess.

Taman is beginning to look like Michael Moore.

You have a tendency to gloss over the fact that the Duffy affair is a serious matter and should never have happened in the first place..he's on trial, in a criminal matter. That's Harper..no matter how you spin it. And brilliant strategy of Harper? to run deficit after deficit after deficit and then announce a small surplus using the aid of raiding the UI fund, the contingency fund, and selling off assets? Not glossing over it. Duffy did wrong. That's not on Harper outside of the fact Duffy was a Conservative. He was ordered to replay the money and booted from the Cons. What more did you want Harper to do, take Duffy over his knee and spank him? How much public money has been spent on a matter that involved $90,000 that was repaid? Compared to the $40 million in the liberal sponsorship scandal that was never repaid for the millions the NDP still owes that they wont repay? I dont know what Harper's strategy was. I questioned calling an election when he did, right in the midst of the Duffy trial and with the country about to slip into recession. But now, no one cares about Duffy and we had a month of the opposition framing this election as a referendum on the economy. Trudeau committed to spending out of the recession since we were in deficit anyway. Then all of a sudden, the economy begins to look up, we post a surplus and the question of "who is the best manager of the economy" begins to resonate with voters that hey, maybe it's Harper. And Trudeau is now married to his promise to go into massive deficit. And Trudeau has gone on record attributing the downturn in the economy to the drop in oil prices, which really confirms what Harper has been saying.

I agree with Mike. Nothing special. And in fact, I thought the booking was the usual sub-par. Maybe Im jaded about wrestling now lol WWE seems intent on not letting anyone get over. Kevin Owens wins (the right decision) but via an eye rake and roll up? Terribly lame. New Day is a good act but they are a good example of what WWE does when they stumble on something fun or cool or unique - they beat us over the head with it until we're sick of it while the announces do their fake laugh and tell you whats trending. Charlotte vs Nikki was just awful on many levels. The only thing good was the fact Charlotte won the title and Steph didnt make an appearance. Another example of no one is allowed to get over. Nikki dominates the match in such a way the crowd isnt given any opportunity to get into Charlotte's chase. And the "emotional" finish was complete muted by the fact they did the exact same thing six days earlier and reversed it. What they did on RAW was rob Charlotte and the fans of the experience of winning. Chris Jericho as the mystery partner was good. Much better than Randy Orton or Rowan. I was hoping for Samoa Joe. Jericho has sort of jumped the shark to me but he was a good surprise for the fans. Notice the fan hit the ring before Jericho's entrance? That's 5 incidents of fans hopping the barricade, all on former Shield members in the last few weeks. WWE better up their security before someone gets hurt. I assume the Jericho psuedo heel turn is the latest attempt to get Roman over. Good luck. Rollins is the best worker in the world right now (or at least North America where it matters to most of us). Tremendous talent. Cena needed to win the US title and it was a good match. Rollins vs Sting. Well... I would have put the belt on Sting. They booked Sting under again and its clear they see him as a name to exploit for a few bucks before putting out to pasture. Seth was virtually unconscious when the match began and Sting still lost. Sting is in great shape and worked very hard. 56 years old, worked 1 time in the past couple of years and still took a bump through a table, a plancha off the top and a powerbomb into the turnbuckles...he was a gamer for sure. I think he cracked or bruised his ribs, had the wind knocked out of him. Good on him for continuing though. Bad on WWE for doing another roll up finish. In their minds it "protects" Sting. it doesnt. And it doesnt do anything for Rollins either. And dont get me started on Kane. Good that he returned with his old gimmick. Bad that in 2015 Kane is seemingly going into an angle with Seth. And I actually love Kane. But this is as bad as Big Show being a top guy. Sheamus is a big bag of suck too. I was hoping Sheamus would cash in after the Cena match, win the title and then lose to Sting. But alas.... It exposes one of WWE's problems right now. They have no top faces. They pulled Ambrose down to try and get Roman over. They wont put the strap on Brock. And no one else is over enough. They want to do Seth/HHH which will probably be good but again, Hunter should not be a top guy in 2015. They should do a double turn with Seth and Roman or push Ambrose back up.

Wouldn't having 3 parties on one side of center and 1 on the other adjust where the center is? if you stand in the center of the room and three people stand on one side of you and one stands on the other, it doesnt change where the center of the room is. yeah its not geography. The center lies in different places in different countries depending on how distributed the populations political beliefs are. A more appropriate analogy would be, if you take a room and add or remove an addition one one side, has the middle of the room moved. Yup, no one said it wasnt. Point is the same.

Wouldn't having 3 parties on one side of center and 1 on the other adjust where the center is? if you stand in the center of the room and three people stand on one side of you and one stands on the other, it doesnt change where the center of the room is.

Other than it being pretty accurate that none of the issues really stuck to the Conservatives. In fact, the Duffy thing is straight out absurd considering the details, the economy might have been a brilliant strategy on Harper's part and the the biggest take away from the refugee issue is Donnelly is a liar and Canadians seem cool with current processes. Even better than the rebel blogger post is the one on one interview with JT I posted. Its a pretty easy watch and I recommend it. Not sure what JT supporters will get out of it but it really reinforced the idea that Justin is an empty suit. A nice suit, sure, but empty. Found a transcript of part of it (Not sure if its in this transcript but JT also admitted the longer election was a benefit to Canadians) This is a transcript of interview that Steve Murphy of CTV Halifax did with Justin Trudeau: Justin Trudeau's performance skills on the national stage have improved. In general, he looks more poised and confident despite not looking as in command of his files during the debate as his opponents. But when you read the content of Justin Trudeau's actual words in an interview that lightly challenges his rhetoric, they don't, to be generous, live up to his visual presentation. Please read it for yourself and share. SM: A couple months ago, you were promising a balanced budget. Now you’re promising not to balance the budget. JT: Actually that’s not true. I’m still promising to balance the budget but do it in 2019. SM: But you were promising balanced budgets as soon as you got into office… JT: No, I never said “as soon as.” I knew the priority is to grow the economy. The priority is to get things going in the right way. And when Mr. Harper brought us back into recession right now, I knew that what Canadians need is a government that invests in them. Particularly when we have low interest rates, a very healthily low debt to GDP ratio, and a whole bunch of skilled people out of work. SM: Why did you decide to change the promise from balancing the budget to balancing the budget later. What changed in your thinking? JT: What changed is that we have we had a surplus that disappeared. Uh Mr. Harper… SM: …the Finance department, Mr. Trudeau, with all due respect, the Finance department says we have a surplus now. JT: A year ago, a year ago before the oil prices crashed we were talking about billions of dollars in surplus, and the debate was going to be over what…how best to spend that surplus. Then we ended up…the oil price crashed… we end up in recession. There’s questions of whether we are in deficit or not now…either way we’re on the knife edge of it. There’s not the billions of dollars to spend. SM: But you know… JT: And we realized, and we realized that investing in what Canadians need now is more important than putting things off. So we’ve been straight… SM: I want to go back to the deficit piece however…[cross talk] JT: Three years of deficits… SM: The finance ministry says that we are not in deficit now. JT: No, no… SM: For the first quarter…we are not in deficit. JT: They said we’re not in deficit for last year. We don’t know where we are now. We won’t know until next year. SM: But why do you believe that we are in deficit now? JT: Because the Parliamentary Budget Officer, in his analysis, said that we were. SM: I want to ask you, if you could change your mind about this again. You know you changed your mind about having a balanced budget out of the gates… [cross talk] JT: No…no…no. I’ve never changed... SM: But will you ever…would you ever…[crosstalk] JT: I never changed my mind about that. I said that the Liberal party…the Liberal Party is committed to fiscal discipline and we will balance the budget. We will balance it in 2019 because we need investment. And the fact is that I’m not going to do what Mr. Mulcair and Mr. Harper has done three times, which is to stand and tell people “I’m going to balance the budget” and then afterwards say “oops, the numbers aren’t that good. We’re not going to be able to do that” SM: how much spending have you done during this campaign? What’s the dollar value of all of your new spending promises? JT: Uh we’re about two thirds of the way through to our..our…commitment to balance…to to a $10 billion deficit in year one, two and less in year three. SM: So how much new spending have you announced? JT: Ummmm….a fair bit…we have a full costing coming out…no…we we’re we’re the first party to put out a fully costed framework that said three years of deficits plus a balanced budget. And that gives us a framework to invest more in E.I., to invest more in infrastructure that people need. SM: I understand but how much have you spent in new promises, thus far? I mean you either know and won’t say or you don’t know? JT: Uhhh…the fact is we are going to put out a properly costed platform once we’ve announced all our promises. And if you want to tabulate them you can go on our website and do that. I’m more focused on actually talking about what we’re going to do right away for Canadians then sitting there with a calculator which… you know, you guys can do! SM: Some of your opponents have had out the calculator and they see you up around twenty-five or thirty billion in new spending… JT: That’s completely wrong… SM: But what is right then? [crosstalk] JT: That’s completely wrong. SM: What is the number then? JT: No, what is wrong is they’re folding in promises that provinces have made. Mr. Harper counts on pensions as taxes. Pensions are not taxes. Pensions are money that you get back when you retire. Taxes, you pay to the government. SM: Have you spent most of your deficit already? What I’m trying to figure out is out of the $10 billion that you’re willing to go into deficit, have you announced that already? JT: No not not not even close. SM: So there’s more to come? JT: Yes SM: Where are you going to get the money, the revenue? JT: We are going to raise taxes on the wealthiest 1% so we can cut them for the middle class. And that’s not even new money brought in. That’s an offsetting. We’re raising taxes by three billion dollars for the wealthiest one percent and we’re lowering them for the middle class SM: I understand. But that’s only 3 billion. JT: That’s right. SM: What are the other revenues sources you have in mind? JT: There’s another $2 billion coming in that we’re going to put towards Canada Child Benefits - more generous for the people that need them. Less generous for the wealthy Canadians who don’t need them. These are some of the issues we’re looking for. We also know that the best way to create revenue for Canadians, and for the gov’t, is to grow the economy. Mr. Harper has been unable to create growth. He has the worst growth record of any prime minister in 80 years. And we need to kick-start the economy, invest in infrastructure to create that growth. SM: But do you have other revenue streams in mind that you have not announced yet? JT: We will have more to announce in the coming weeks. SM: So you do have new revenue ideas in mind? JT: We will have more things to announce in the coming weeks. SM: Are there new taxes in mind? JT: No. SM: So where are you going to get the money? JT: We have… SM: …if it’s not new taxes? JT: Steve, we could put this off for a few weeks, and we can have more conversation once I have everything… SM: But we can’t put it off too much longer. The election’s in 4 weeks. JT: In 4 weeks. And therefore we can talk again in 2 weeks…or 2 or 3 weeks, and I’ll be glad to highlight all the elements in it. The fact is, in a long election campaign like this, there’s an awful lot of time to talk about individual announcements, like the one we made today – where the money for investing in the navy is actually going to come from cancelling the F-35s, which were billions…tens of billions dollars more expensive than they need to be. SM: What is the cost of cancelling the F-35 contract to Canada’s aerospace industry? JT: Zero. SM: So you can get out and it won’t cost anybody… JT: There is no contract. It’s zero. There are jobs in the aerospace industry linked to the F-35. But those are jobs that were created by commitment in the Liberal gov’t to be part of the F-35 process. Not commitment to buy an F-35. SM: Just a few things before we go, because our time is almost up. What do you mean when you talk about a leaner military? Does that mean fewer salaries being paid to people in uniform? JT: No, actually. It means less consultants. This current gov’t is wasting record amounts of military budget on external consultants. That’s not what our military needs, as Andy Leslie says, ‘more teeth, less tail.’ SM: No spending cuts pertaining to salaries for people in uniform? JT: We’ve committed to keeping military spending at the same level, and actually following up on the increases promised, which this Conservative gov’t hasn’t been able to do. SM: Does the Halifax shipyard contract remain exactly the same as it is now, under Justin Trudeau? JT: Yes. Absolutely. SM: You are spending a lot of time talking about spending a lot of money. What is the largest budget you’ve actually ever presided over in your lifetime thus far? JT: $20 million Katimavik budget. I was running Canada’s national youth service program. SM: $20 million is quite a bit of money. A hundred billion… JT: That’s one of the reasons I’ve surrounded myself with an extraordinary team. The team of Liberal candidates we’ve put forward across this country to be strong, credible voices for their communities and within gov’t are going to be extraordinary at delivering the right kind of gov’t.

I heard the Lawless interview this morning & what he said really makes no sense. I don't even know what that even means? I've heard Murphy on the radio here in Calgary being interviewed plenty in the past on the Stamps flagship station 770 CHQR AM. The guy doesn't sound rough around the edges at all. He can be direct & to the point. He knows football plain & simple & knows how to build a winner. Interesting that when the media here in Calgary want to get the scoop du jour on player personnel matters they don't ask Huff.They ask Murphy. The Lawless comment about Murphy not being refined just smacks like the reason we passed on Lemar Durant & took Addision Richards instead because Durant is a quiet guy & didn't "interview well". Guys like Walters were so busy trying to find fault with his personality that they totally ignored his talent & he passed right by them to the Stamps who gleefully snapped him up. If the Bombers could get Murphy then passed because he wasn't "refined" then how stupid are they? Wait, don't answer that. I mean, if you want to take this a bit further & discuss Lawless then, how does he get a gig on the radio & is seen on tv as he has a demeanor & a voice better suited to work anywhere but the broadcast media. How refined does an overweight, wrinkled, middle aged man in a brushcut look? But hey, I ain't prejudging... I did like how Lawless laughed off the Chris Walby comments that Danny McManus should take over as GM as he's "just a scout". No management experience at all. Well its sort of silly to say LAwless is wrong based on hearing Murphy give interviews on the radio. Id assume Lawless has interacted with him more than most of us and has asked around about him. Lawless saying he's rough around the edges sounds like what his internal rep might be. On the other hand I bet if asked Lawless' suggestion for the "smooth" partner for Murphy would be Taman. And since Lawless seems to be pals with the guy, it wouldnt surprise me. But it would make me puke.

Yes. Cant you?

It seems taking a chance on a HC without prior HC experience was a mistake. Wasn't the thing that no matter the score the team would always be fighting if MOS was HC?

If the season is over why not fire him now and see if Howell and/or Buck are worth keeping at seasons end.