I suggest you read this only after you’ve read today’s articles and posts in the LA Times, LAKi and Hockey Buzz on the alleged off-ice incident involving Drew Doughty. Because I’m not going to recount the story as reported by those fine writers. I hesitate even to write this post. But I have a few thoughts, and this is a blog after all. So:
I keep reading that this is a “he said/she said” situation, so we will likely never know what really happened. This is usually an admonition not to jump to conclusions, in either direction. While that’s sound advice in general, I can’t help but notice that there’s only one person whose reputation is being publicly tarnished in this case, and that’s Drew Doughty.
For some very good reasons, the identities of alleged rape victims are kept out of the public discourse. One of the effects of this, though, is that the anonymous accuser’s reputation is protected while the reputation of the accused is irreparably damaged. It may be irreparably damaged to a small degree (if the accusation turns out to be obviously false) or to a huge degree (if it turns out to be true). But some amount of damage has already been done. Because it will always be possible for someone to say, “only two people know what really happened.” People will continue to say it, even if the anonymous accusation turns out to be manifestly bogus and inspired by all the unsavory, greedy motivations that people leaping to Doughty’s defense have already suggested…the very same motivations the rest of us privately suspect.
Namely, that if you fuck a dumbshit young rock-star millionaire, you can cash in and “only two people will ever really know what happened.”
I’m quite sure Drew is a millionaire dumbass with questionable judgment who naively thinks nothing bad could ever happen to him because he happens to be a hockey god. Given that I believe this, which circumstance would I think is more likely: (a) Drew Doughty is a rapist, or (b) his anonymous accuser is a lying gold-digger?
I don’t really think there’s anything reasonable or impartial about pretending that those two possibilities are equally likely.