I checked, and this is the first time Deadspin has ever tagged him in a post, which is a very, very good sign.

I guess it’s a good sign of his leadership that I’d never heard of Peter Holt until two minutes ago.

No. Unfounded is legal-speak for false accusation, not lack of evidence. You may be thinking of “unsubstantiated.”

I suspect the strength of that statement was meant to reinforce the one that follows: “The League considers the matter closed and will have no further comment.” Anything less than “unfounded” or “without merit” leaves the league open to suggestions that it’s not really closed, and invites people to ask them all sorts…

I’m not even disagreeing with your general point (because: WHAT IF HE DID DO IT?!?!?!), but still...Is it okay, in any sense of the word, to defend someone you believe to be innocent? Obviously (or maybe hopefully), the NHL would change their tune if evidence were to come out in the future implicating him in this. The…