Hockey violence: where does it stop?

There’s no point shying away from the word. Hockey is working its way back—or has never really moved away from—violence.

Eddie Shore ended Ace Bailey’s NHL career in the 1930s with a vicious hit.

In the early 1970s, I recall watching Wayne Cashman of the “Big Bad Bruins” swing his stick over his head violently and just miss hitting Minnesota’s Dennis Hextall in the head during a brawl between the two-teams. The NHL did nothing. It was just “part of the game”.

Later that decade, the “Broad Street Bullies” won two Stanley Cups. The Ontario legal system tried to jump in, and many argued the courts had no place in hockey rinks, because the sport ‘regulated’ itself.

Really?

We all remember the Todd Bertuzzi incident of a few years ago. Steve Moore has never played again. Last time I looked, Bertuzzi was still making millions, playing in the NHL. He represented Canada at the Olympics (selected by Hockey Canada), did he not, after that awful act?

A few folks say, “Oh, that’s terrible”, a player gets a slap on the wrist and we move on.

Has our mentality changed at all?

Last week, a well-regarded junior player in the Quebec League elbowed an unsuspecting opposing player, leading to convulsions on the ice. A suspension “announcement” is due shortly.

That same player displayed on-ice behaviour at the recent world junior championships that should have been punished. Hockey Canada did nothing.

Does the NHL, or Hockey Canada, set the “attitude” tone for hockey behaviour?

This past November, in an earlier post, I wrote the following:

Players can say they don’t hit to injure, but they certainly hit to hurt, and given the reality of the human body, that’s really no distinction at all.

Players are bigger and skate faster than ever before. The huge equipment players wear is a big problem. It makes players feel they aren’t vulnerable, yet they are, in part because of the equipment they wear.

Football and hockey were both probably safer (still “hard-hitting” but safer) when players dressed more like rugby players than gladiators.

Think about: fans -and the media - have spent countless hours in recent years discussing the apparent epidemic of serious injuries—head shots (many still “legal” in hockey terms); hitting from behind situations; concussions; knee injuries and more.

It really does have to stop.

When you have 16 year-old playing against men, the risks are already there. Unless hockey authorities begin to absolutely, once and for all, outlaw hitting from behind or even the side, this problem will continue.

NHL GM’s met this week, and reports suggest movement was made about creating new rules to reduce dangerous hits. Too often in the past the league talked around the real issues. They can’t seem to decide what types of hits should be “legal”.

To me, the question is not what is legal in hockey terms, but what is dangerous.

The game has changed. Rules, and what is—and isn’t—allowed, should evolve as a result.

It has taken generations to get people to recognize the problems associated with smoking, for example, and to change behaviour. And still, probably 20% or more of people smoke in Canada and the United States.

Changing the mentality around hockey won’t be easy. You don’t want to lose the great parts of the action, but surely protecting the basic safety of vulnerable athletes—especially at the younger ages—must be a priority.

Again, let’s not pretend we’re making a big deal out of nothing. This is a big deal. Hockey is a great game, but has always experienced players who go way over “the line”.

We’ve talked about hitting from behind, for example, for years. Youth hockey has those “STOP” signs on the back of jerseys. Yet, watch almost any NHL game these days and you see guys throwing other players into the boards from behind.

Why?

We demand that players be rough and tough, and in the middle of intense competition, when athletes have heard this all their life, this is what you’re going to get. Violence.

It’s hard enough to made smart decisions in the middle of the day in a relaxed and comfortable environment—when you have time to make the best decision you can.

In sports, and certainly in hockey, players have a split-second to decide. Their competitive instincts, and the values they have been taught since they were kids, take over.

So you don’t want to dull the competitive instincts, but we better do something about the values were are installing in our young people when to comes to competition.

We can talk all day and junior hockey commissioners can use nice, thoughtful-sounding words about what’s not acceptable, but at the end of the day, nothing is actually changing.

We all realize professional sports is about winning—full stop. Big business. People talk about the importance of character but if, at the end of the day, a Sean Avery helps you win, he has a job. The same attitude is pervasive, not only at the Junior levels of sport, but all the way down through the minor/youth levels.

A visit to most any youth hockey rink on any given night, and listening to parents yell at opposing players who may be all of 10 years old, tells us all we need to know.

It’s sad, just really sad.

McGwire still misses the mark

Former baseball slugger Mark McGwire “came clean” recently, finally admitting he took steroids over many years in his juiced-up major-league career.

That he, and many others who have yet to “declare”, did so should be no surprise.

His hope, and that of his friend and booster, St. Louis manager Tony LaRussa, is apparently that people will accept his “apology” and “move on” and not dwell in and on the past. This is all part of a public relations campaign to be warmly embraced by baseball again.

One wonders if Barry Bonds, with a different personality and relationship to the game, would be given the same embrace if he acknowledged steroid use in the future?

While belated honesty is perhaps preferable to no honesty at all, before McGwire is given absolute ‘forgiveness” by the sporting community, there are some points that really should be raised:

• 
  
   For many years I have preached the importance of acknowledgement, in its various forms. But there has to be a timing element to a willingness to acknowledge. Doing so, as McGwire has, when the obvious attraction is changing the minds of Hall-of-Fame voters (who had days before snubbed him for the third year in a row) is quite obvious.
• 
  
  McGwire’s apology is written with a deft touch, which to give the impression the steroids didn’t really help his performance. His broad-brush claim, saying essentially, “I had good years when I didn’t use them, bad years when I did” is hard to believe. There is simply too much evidence to the contrary, not only in his case but in those of dozens of other “caught” athletes who achieved results they otherwise would not have, or they would not have been using these substances. Interestingly, these individuals are almost always caught well after the fact, and after records have been set.
• 
  
  To say he took them “on and off” over the years again aims to throw people off the scent. What does “on and off” really mean? A car doesn’t need gas every day, but when it runs down, you put in the gas. Was this any different?
• 
  
  He claims he used steroids only to help heal injuries more quickly. Of course, this is one we’ve all heard before (see Andy Petite and others). No doubt it’s true that steroids quicken the healing process. But are we to ignore the other staggering performance side-benefits? And what of those athletes who were also injured but chose to work their way back into the line-up the old-fashioned way—though sheer hard work and dedication.
• 
  
  He says he “wasn’t in a position” to tell Congress the truth five years ago. Why? It’s all because of his lawyers?
• 
  
  McGwire says he is being as “honest as he can be”. How honest is “honest as he can be?”

Surely this is all designed for the aforementioned Hall-of-Fame balloting for next year, and to ensure a comfy landing spot back in baseball.

It’s interesting that former slugging teammate Jose Canseco was laughed out of the baseball fraternity in light of his allegedly silly allegations about steroid use in his book published some years back. Yet much of what Canseco wrote has turned out to be pretty accurate, it seems.

McGwire says he won’t get into a debate with Canseco about the issue, saying he wants to “stay on the high road”. Easy to say when you’ve done the opposite for twenty years.

I really wonder what lesson this circus sends to young student-athletes, and young people in general. Cheat for more than 10 years, wait another five to tell the “truth”—(and was it the full truth?), then become the guy who tells kids “do as a say, not as I did, while I got unbelievably wealthy while cheating…”

The hypocrisy of the entire baseball community is stunning as well. Not to defend the indefensible (a manager betting on baseball games) but Pete Rose remains out of the game, essentially, never to be in the Hall-of-Fame, though his transgressions occurred after his playing career and arguably came as a result of an illness- an addiction to gambling. A worthy player such as Jack Morris isn’t in the Hall-of-Fame because a number of writers didn’t/don’t like him. More “likeable” players with no better or lesser credentials are in. Go figure.

None of this is to suggest McGwire wasn’t an elite power hitter, a hard worker or dedicated to his sport. He clearly was and if you set the steroid issue aide, was inarguably a Hall-of-Fame talent because of his prodigious home run skills.

It’s important—but sometimes a bit too easy—to preach and believe in forgiveness. There are worse things than taking steroids, for sure. But this particular recent apology was just a bit too easy.