Carter Hart is backstopping the Vegas Golden Knights in the Stanley Cup final nearly one year after being acquitted of one sexual assault charge. But an acquittal doesn't end the tough discussion about what accountability looks like.
There is a tendency in sports, and perhaps in society more broadly, to treat difficult stories as though they arrive with a clean ending.
A verdict is delivered. A suspension is served. A player returns. The story moves on.
But some stories refuse to co-operate with that structure.
The reaction to Carter Hart's return to the NHL — and now being on the verge of a Stanley Cup championship with the Vegas Golden Knights — is another reminder that legal resolution and public acceptance are not the same thing.
The "No means no" chants during Games 1 and 2 of the Stanley Cup final made that loud and clear.
For some observers, the chants were inappropriate because Hart was acquitted of one sexual assault charge last July following a two-month trial in London, Ont.
For others, they were an understandable expression of reprimand toward a sport that has spent years struggling to convince people it takes sexual misconduct seriously.
The reality is more complicated than either side would like.
Hart, along with his four co-defendants who each faced allegations of sexual assault stemming from what happened after a Hockey Canada gala in June 2018, was found not guilty.
The criminal justice system exists for a reason. The standard of proof required to convict someone of a crime is extraordinarily high, and a judge determined the standard was not met.
Acknowledging that fact does not automatically erase every question surrounding what happened.
While Hart was found not guilty, it does not necessarily mean that he is completely innocent.
What the players did behind closed doors after a night of drinking at a Hockey Canada gala honoring their victory at the 2018 World Junior Championship might not have been criminal. But it was wrong on several levels. Regardless of consent, a young woman was taken advantage of by a group of young men who became the poster boys for the toxic masculinity and negative culture that still pervades the sport.
The fact that Hart spent nearly two years out of the NHL reflected that. The NHL also suspended the players involved until Dec. 1 of this season after determining their conduct did not meet the highest level of moral integrity.
In essence, the NHL was saying something many people are uncomfortable discussing: behavior can fall short of acceptable standards without meeting the threshold for criminal conviction.
That is not unique to hockey. It happens in virtually every profession.
The challenge for the NHL is that it has rarely demonstrated consistency when navigating those grey areas, and that inconsistency is a major reason why Hart's return has generated such strong reactions.
People are not evaluating this situation in a vacuum. They are evaluating it through the lens of a league that spent years defending a culture of silence, perhaps most notably through the lens of events like the Kyle Beach scandal and furthermore through the lens of executives, coaches and players who have often received second chances without clear explanations of what accountability actually looked like.
When former Chicago Blackhawks coach Joel Quenneville returned to the NHL after investigations found he played a role in organizational failures surrounding Beach's allegations, many fans saw a league eager to move forward without fully reckoning with its past.
Whether that perception is fair or not, it exists. And perceptions matter.
So when Hart skates onto the ice during the Stanley Cup final, many fans are not simply seeing a goaltender. They are seeing a test case, a symbol, a referendum on what accountability means in modern hockey.
What makes the situation especially exhausting is that there is no consensus.
There are fans who believe the acquittal should have ended the conversation entirely. There are fans who believe the NHL should never have allowed Hart to return. And then there is a middle ground occupied by people who find themselves sitting with conflicting thoughts.
They accept the court's decision and understand there's nothing legally preventing Hart from continuing his career. At the same time, they also feel uneasy watching one of the central figures in one of hockey's most damaging scandals potentially lift the Stanley Cup.
Sports are built around redemption stories. Fans love them. Athletes fail, struggle, learn and return stronger. The narrative is embedded in every level of competition. But redemption traditionally requires a clear understanding of what someone is being redeemed from, and that clarity does not exist here.
Hart has avoided discussing the situation publicly, due largely in part to the fact that his media availabilities have been limited. Vegas has not helped public perception by removing the credential of The Athletic's Mark Lazerus when he attempted to interrogate the situation. The NHL has offered little detailed explanation regarding the specific conduct that justified its discipline.
The result is a vacuum that inevitably gets filled by speculation, assumptions and competing interpretations.
For Golden Knights fans, the situation presents its own moral calculus.
Many have chosen to focus on what Hart has meant to their team. This season, he is a big reason why Vegas made it to the Stanley Cup final. However, now that he's two wins away from hoisting the Cup, some are undoubtedly grappling with the broader implications of what a championship would represent.
Championships confer something beyond success. They are part of a player's legacy. They become permanent. If Vegas wins, Hart will forever be remembered as a Stanley Cup champion.
For some, that feels entirely appropriate. They will go out of their way to rub it in the faces of Hart's detractors because he has become somewhat of a cult hero for the edgelords who just want to get a rise out of those pesky, over-emotional female hockey fans.
For others, it feels deeply uncomfortable — yet another tangible example of how athletes always seem to be the exception to real-life consequences. Hart was alleged to have participated in inflicting pain, humiliation and trauma on a young woman, yet those sexual assault allegations that supposedly always ruin men's lives are seemingly having the opposite effect for him.
The questions surrounding Hart were never purely legal. They were cultural, institutional and about trust. The court answered one set of questions. The NHL attempted to answer another. Fans are now stuck wrestling with the rest.
That is why the conversation continues. And that is why, regardless of who wins the Stanley Cup, one of the defining stories of this series has very little to do with hockey itself.
The verdict ended the trial. It did not — and never will — end the debate.
For action-packed issues, access to the entire magazine archive and a free issue, subscribe to The Hockey News at THN.com/free. See more of The Hockey News on Google and save us as a preferred source. Get the latest news and trending stories by subscribing to our newsletter here. And share your thoughts by commenting below the article on THN.com or creating your own post in our community forum.