In early April, local newspaper stories reported that a 15 year-old high school hockey player from New Brunswick scored a goal in double-overtime to help her team win a high-school playoff game.
While she had her hands raised in celebration, an opposing player allegedly cross-checked the young girl.
The 15 year old has spent time in hospital, suffering from a lacerated spleen.
The 18-year old senior who evidently pushed, shoved or hit the younger girl has been suspended indefinitely.
Unfortunately, these incidents, while relatively isolated, are not all that rare, and they speak to a disconcerting attitude that afflicts ‘competitive’ sports, including youth sports.
We all say youth sports should be for the kids; should be about having fun; should be about getting a chance for all kids to play, regardless of ability.
Perhaps we are simply fighting human nature, as many people tend to be competitive to varying degrees, but the moment we “keep score”, playing a game for fun becomes almost impossible.
From supposedly casual so-called recreational or house-league sports programs to the various levels of competitive ‘rep’ or ‘elite’ sports, the demands and expectations placed on kids, teenagers and young adults is sometimes overwhelming.
As adults, we offer conflicting messages. We encourage our kids to have fun, and some people even suggest winning is truly unimportant, and mean it. Yet we put our kids in games, leagues and situations where there are so-called winners and losers.
In a society where we unfortunately still put a significant emphasis on who is bigger, faster, stronger or tougher, the moment a youngster shows a bit of skill, they are often encouraged to try out for a ‘higher’ level of competition. Pressure grows as expectations rise. (For some, it leads to the use of performance-enhancing drugs, but that’s a story for another day.)
Where does all this come from?
Well, we as parents certainly are part of the problem. Hockey Canada aimed a series of public service announcements at parents over the last couple of years, dealing with this very issue of parents taking youth sports more seriously than their kids do. The leading hockey organization in Canada was seemingly hoping to encourage people to look in the mirror and do a little self-reflection, and perhaps recognize that certain behaviours as parents and spectators were in fact harmful to kids. All this in the hope that we may all start to put the emphasis back on fun.
Yet in the same breath, Hockey Canada bent over backwards this year to ensure that Todd Bertuzzi was named to Team Canada for the 2006 Winter Olympics—despite his alleged assault on Steve Moore in an NHL game two years ago, an unquestionably dirty hit from behind that has been seen countless times by millions of kids across the country.
Bertuzzi can do that, and still be granted the greatest honour available to hockey players in this country, less than two years after the incident.
What messages does this send to parents—and to their kids?
If that kind of behaviour – and Steve Moore still is not healthy enough to play hockey to this day-- is not only tolerated and goes virtually un-punished by Hockey Canada (the NHL purports to have “punished” Bertuzzi with what amounted to a minimal suspension), what should hockey parents think?
Is it any wonder a youth hockey coach was allegedly grabbed around the neck in the fall of 2005 by an angry parent? Is it any wonder a young girl is hit violently enough after scoring a goal that she is seriously injured? We can talk about these things being isolated incidents, or suggest it’s just a matter of a few adults or kids with anger management issues. But it goes deeper than that.
Yes, parents have a huge role here. Parents teach and model the values of ethical thought, sportsmanship and acceptable social behaviour. No question.
Many people don’t like to lose. And many people spend a lifetime learning to accept defeat in life’s many forms, whether sports-related or not. Many never do adjust.
But reacting violently to the success of another is never acceptable, and it certainly isn’t acceptable in a youth hockey game.
You can spend millions of dollars on advertising in an effort to spread a positive message. But as many have said before, words are just that-- words. It’s what a person -- or in this case an organization in a position of leadership-- does that actually matters.
Hockey Canada dropped the ball on the Bertuzzi matter, when they had a chance to really send an important message. Instead they decided that trying to win an Olympic medal was more important than doing the right thing.
And they are the ones in charge of hockey in this country?
With that kind of leadership, should we wonder why we face the problems we do in the youth hockey world?
Saturday, April 1, 2006
Sunday, January 1, 2006
Never the Hall for Jack?
Given the work that I do as a communications advisor to many professional athletes and coaches, you might think I would never use former Detroit Tiger ace Jack Morris as an “example” of how an athlete should interact with the media.
The veteran right-hander won more than 250 games in his outstanding career, and continued to pitch complete games into the 1990’s when that had become a lost art. Perhaps more noteworthy, he was utterly superb in the post-season, helping lead the Tigers in 1984, the Twins in 1991 and the Blue Jays (to a lesser degree) in 1992 to World Series triumphs.
Does Morris deserve to be in the Hall-of-Fame?
Without question. It will soon be the case that the former 300-win criterion will be obsolete, as no one of the new generation will be able to achieve those heights. And at present, such criteria can certainly be massaged when voters see fit. Sandy Koufax and Whitey Ford did not win close to 300 games, but were considered dominant pitchers in their eras and earned entry into the Hall.
Morris was a dominant— and feared— pitcher, particularly good at crunch time.
But Morris was, with the press, caustic and acerbic, by most accounts. And it is the press who cast the key ballots for entry into the Baseball Hall-of-Fame.
Would a writer not vote for Morris because the writer resented Morris’ attitude as a player?
Who knows?
Ted Williams had a miserable relationship with many reporters, but had no problem earning entry into the so-called hallowed halls.
In more recent years, pitchers Bob Gibson and Steve Carlton rarely, if ever, spoke with the media as their careers progressed.
They made it to the Hall.
But sometimes reporters do have long memories.
All this leads to a simple point. Gibson and Carlton, and of course Williams, were surefire Hall-of-Fame players regardless of how some reporters might have felt about them personally.
What happens if you are seen as a borderline Hall-of-Fame candidate?
Like Jack Morris.
Had Morris perhaps been a little more patient, a little more accessible, a little more Gary Carter-like (Carter was also seen as a borderline Hall-of-Fame candidate by many, but was very accessible to the media throughout his career) in his demeanor through those great years he had, he may be celebrating a phone call from the Hall-of-Fame selection committee this January.
The call might have come years ago, for that matter. Morris has been eligible for a long time.
From what one hears, it doesn’t sound as though Jack Morris worries about all this, or regrets his actions. He was no doubt his own man, and likely would not have had it any other way.
But as much as one can admire his stubborn individuality on some level, it’s a shame the relationship between he and the media was never repaired.
He deserves to be in the Hall.
If nothing else, perhaps some young athlete will read this and realize that he can still be an individual, but show respect for the media. They have a job to do. Ignoring them, or picking a fight with them, rarely helps, during — or after— your career.
Take the time to learn to interact thoughtfully with the media. Do it because it’s the right thing to do, because all your professional relationships should be based on mutual respect and understanding for the job others have to do.
But if you don’t do it for that reason, at least do it out of self-interest.
It may just help you down the road.
The veteran right-hander won more than 250 games in his outstanding career, and continued to pitch complete games into the 1990’s when that had become a lost art. Perhaps more noteworthy, he was utterly superb in the post-season, helping lead the Tigers in 1984, the Twins in 1991 and the Blue Jays (to a lesser degree) in 1992 to World Series triumphs.
Does Morris deserve to be in the Hall-of-Fame?
Without question. It will soon be the case that the former 300-win criterion will be obsolete, as no one of the new generation will be able to achieve those heights. And at present, such criteria can certainly be massaged when voters see fit. Sandy Koufax and Whitey Ford did not win close to 300 games, but were considered dominant pitchers in their eras and earned entry into the Hall.
Morris was a dominant— and feared— pitcher, particularly good at crunch time.
But Morris was, with the press, caustic and acerbic, by most accounts. And it is the press who cast the key ballots for entry into the Baseball Hall-of-Fame.
Would a writer not vote for Morris because the writer resented Morris’ attitude as a player?
Who knows?
Ted Williams had a miserable relationship with many reporters, but had no problem earning entry into the so-called hallowed halls.
In more recent years, pitchers Bob Gibson and Steve Carlton rarely, if ever, spoke with the media as their careers progressed.
They made it to the Hall.
But sometimes reporters do have long memories.
All this leads to a simple point. Gibson and Carlton, and of course Williams, were surefire Hall-of-Fame players regardless of how some reporters might have felt about them personally.
What happens if you are seen as a borderline Hall-of-Fame candidate?
Like Jack Morris.
Had Morris perhaps been a little more patient, a little more accessible, a little more Gary Carter-like (Carter was also seen as a borderline Hall-of-Fame candidate by many, but was very accessible to the media throughout his career) in his demeanor through those great years he had, he may be celebrating a phone call from the Hall-of-Fame selection committee this January.
The call might have come years ago, for that matter. Morris has been eligible for a long time.
From what one hears, it doesn’t sound as though Jack Morris worries about all this, or regrets his actions. He was no doubt his own man, and likely would not have had it any other way.
But as much as one can admire his stubborn individuality on some level, it’s a shame the relationship between he and the media was never repaired.
He deserves to be in the Hall.
If nothing else, perhaps some young athlete will read this and realize that he can still be an individual, but show respect for the media. They have a job to do. Ignoring them, or picking a fight with them, rarely helps, during — or after— your career.
Take the time to learn to interact thoughtfully with the media. Do it because it’s the right thing to do, because all your professional relationships should be based on mutual respect and understanding for the job others have to do.
But if you don’t do it for that reason, at least do it out of self-interest.
It may just help you down the road.
Tuesday, November 1, 2005
In a World of TOs, There Are Still Team Players
Everyone in the sports world has had their say on Terrell Owens. There would seem to be precious little new to add.
Clearly, most elite athletes, professional or amateur, need a healthy dose of self-confidence, even when they play a “team” sport.
A touch of arrogance is rarely applauded, but is generally accepted by most fans and observers, if it goes hand-in-hand with achievement and excellence.
In recent years it is not uncommon in football, for example, to see a player beat his chest and point to the skies triumphantly after a fairly routine defensive play, something that would never have happened in the days of Johnny Unitas and Bart Starr.
Fair enough. Times change, and players are uninhibited in many ways, including in the way in which they express themselves publicly.
A player such as Owens has simply taken all this to the extreme, as he has continued to criticize teammates publicly and promote himself unnecessarily.
In short, he is the opposite, it would seem, of the consummate team player.
This makes the recent success (perhaps short-term in nature) of Edmonton Eskimo quarterback Jason Maas all the more refreshing. Maas is a modern-day Frank Reich, the Buffalo Bills super-sub back up who would lead team, usually very successfully, when Jim Kelly was hurt or slumping. Reich was a classy individual, who accepted his low-profile status on a high-profile team without rancor.
For his part, Mass was an excellent signal-caller for the Eskimos, before Ricky Ray returned from a short stint in the NFL to reclaim his old job.
Maas bided his time, as Ray first played well, then struggled down the stretch in the 2005 season. Maas said nothing to create a disruption.
When Ray was under-performing during the semi-final game against Calgary, Maas stepped in and performed admirably.
Afterwards, he was gracious in victory, and refused to second-guess his coach.
Would Maas like to be the number 1 guy? Of course. Competitive athletes want to play.
But those who understand team sports know it is vitally important to try hard to set certain feelings — as natural as they are — aside, and work to keep the interests of the team first.
As salaries in professional sports have grown out of all proportion in the last twenty-five years, perspective has often been lost.
Who would have thought the golfing world would provide us with some of that lost perspective? It’s often been suggested that golfers are interested in talking about golf, and not much else. That’s a generalization, to be sure. No doubt many golfers have a range of interests, and a social conscience, too.But it is often difficult for some individuals who have achieved success in sport to keep things in perspective.
When Tiger Woods found headlines for slamming his clubs in frustration during an event in Shanghai in November of 2005, a fellow golfer, 23-year old Nick Dougherty, spoke publicly about perspective. “What I’ve learned to appreciate is that lots of people who tune into golf at the end of the day in the office would give anything to be playing in this event, with Tiger Woods in the field. Professional sportsmen can often forget how fortunate they are…”
An interesting — and revealing — comment from a young man who has evidently maintained a sense of balance, despite his having attained professional “success” at such a young age.
Many fellow athletes would do well to reflect on his comments.
Clearly, most elite athletes, professional or amateur, need a healthy dose of self-confidence, even when they play a “team” sport.
A touch of arrogance is rarely applauded, but is generally accepted by most fans and observers, if it goes hand-in-hand with achievement and excellence.
In recent years it is not uncommon in football, for example, to see a player beat his chest and point to the skies triumphantly after a fairly routine defensive play, something that would never have happened in the days of Johnny Unitas and Bart Starr.
Fair enough. Times change, and players are uninhibited in many ways, including in the way in which they express themselves publicly.
A player such as Owens has simply taken all this to the extreme, as he has continued to criticize teammates publicly and promote himself unnecessarily.
In short, he is the opposite, it would seem, of the consummate team player.
This makes the recent success (perhaps short-term in nature) of Edmonton Eskimo quarterback Jason Maas all the more refreshing. Maas is a modern-day Frank Reich, the Buffalo Bills super-sub back up who would lead team, usually very successfully, when Jim Kelly was hurt or slumping. Reich was a classy individual, who accepted his low-profile status on a high-profile team without rancor.
For his part, Mass was an excellent signal-caller for the Eskimos, before Ricky Ray returned from a short stint in the NFL to reclaim his old job.
Maas bided his time, as Ray first played well, then struggled down the stretch in the 2005 season. Maas said nothing to create a disruption.
When Ray was under-performing during the semi-final game against Calgary, Maas stepped in and performed admirably.
Afterwards, he was gracious in victory, and refused to second-guess his coach.
Would Maas like to be the number 1 guy? Of course. Competitive athletes want to play.
But those who understand team sports know it is vitally important to try hard to set certain feelings — as natural as they are — aside, and work to keep the interests of the team first.
As salaries in professional sports have grown out of all proportion in the last twenty-five years, perspective has often been lost.
Who would have thought the golfing world would provide us with some of that lost perspective? It’s often been suggested that golfers are interested in talking about golf, and not much else. That’s a generalization, to be sure. No doubt many golfers have a range of interests, and a social conscience, too.But it is often difficult for some individuals who have achieved success in sport to keep things in perspective.
When Tiger Woods found headlines for slamming his clubs in frustration during an event in Shanghai in November of 2005, a fellow golfer, 23-year old Nick Dougherty, spoke publicly about perspective. “What I’ve learned to appreciate is that lots of people who tune into golf at the end of the day in the office would give anything to be playing in this event, with Tiger Woods in the field. Professional sportsmen can often forget how fortunate they are…”
An interesting — and revealing — comment from a young man who has evidently maintained a sense of balance, despite his having attained professional “success” at such a young age.
Many fellow athletes would do well to reflect on his comments.
Saturday, October 1, 2005
Looking in the Mirror
Many people — media commentators, fans, baseball executives — have been all over Rafael Palmeiro, a fine player for many years dating back to the 1980’s. Palmeiro is a Hall-of-Famer, or at least was, until his suspension for apparent steroid use.
The outrage seems to stem from the fact that he was ‘caught’ for using steroids and had said he didn’t take steroids, including during a rather earnest appearance before Congress.
Every athlete — in every sport— who has ever been ‘caught’ denies using steroids. It’s what they do. From weightlifters to cyclists to football players, they deny.
One might say, “Nobody likes a cheater”. Well, we actually seem to LOVE cheaters. How many guys on the line with Ben Johnson at the 1988 Olympics were really ‘clean’?
Yet they all got lots of attention, fame and money— at least the medal “winners”. We preferred to pretend they were all clean, and only Johnson was guilty— because he was indeed ‘caught’.
Do any of us now believe that all those runners were clean? How many of them were later in their careers “caught”, but with little fanfare? If media reports over the years are accurate, everyone from that ’88 race has since been connected in some way with performance-enhancing drug usage.
Does anyone believe those baseball players who hit mammoth home runs throughout the last 10 or more years were just eating their Wheaties?
The more pertinent question may be why no one cared then, even though everyone knew something was up?
Nobody wanted to acknowledge the truth, despite very public admissions of steroid use from former stars like Ken Caminiti and before him football great Lyle Alzado.
Sports administrators, the media, fans, all knew there was a serious issue.
We chose to want to believe that all was fine.
Or was it simply “OK” because baseball, in its infinite wisdom, chose to make steroid usage “illegal” only recently, though virtually all other sports and amateur/Olympic athletes were at least theoretically at risk of punishment if they got caught?
We now choose to berate Palmeiro, when there are likely dozens and dozens of athletes in all the major sports who have simply not been “caught”.
Baseball czar Bud Selig now triumphantly talks of dealing with this issue, when he was part of a clique that ignored the issue for years— when it served the purposes of promoting baseball after the devastating strike of 1994.
There are no football players on steroids in the NFL? In the NCAA?
C’mon.
The Palmeiro situation again gives us an excuse to dance around the real issues, and focus almost exclusively on him. Like Ben Johnson before him, the only difference between Palmeiro and the countless other athletes — professional and “amateur” — who used or still use performance-enhancing drugs is that they got caught. The real hypocrisy rests perhaps not with Rafael Palmeiro, but with the rest of us.
The outrage seems to stem from the fact that he was ‘caught’ for using steroids and had said he didn’t take steroids, including during a rather earnest appearance before Congress.
Every athlete — in every sport— who has ever been ‘caught’ denies using steroids. It’s what they do. From weightlifters to cyclists to football players, they deny.
One might say, “Nobody likes a cheater”. Well, we actually seem to LOVE cheaters. How many guys on the line with Ben Johnson at the 1988 Olympics were really ‘clean’?
Yet they all got lots of attention, fame and money— at least the medal “winners”. We preferred to pretend they were all clean, and only Johnson was guilty— because he was indeed ‘caught’.
Do any of us now believe that all those runners were clean? How many of them were later in their careers “caught”, but with little fanfare? If media reports over the years are accurate, everyone from that ’88 race has since been connected in some way with performance-enhancing drug usage.
Does anyone believe those baseball players who hit mammoth home runs throughout the last 10 or more years were just eating their Wheaties?
The more pertinent question may be why no one cared then, even though everyone knew something was up?
Nobody wanted to acknowledge the truth, despite very public admissions of steroid use from former stars like Ken Caminiti and before him football great Lyle Alzado.
Sports administrators, the media, fans, all knew there was a serious issue.
We chose to want to believe that all was fine.
Or was it simply “OK” because baseball, in its infinite wisdom, chose to make steroid usage “illegal” only recently, though virtually all other sports and amateur/Olympic athletes were at least theoretically at risk of punishment if they got caught?
We now choose to berate Palmeiro, when there are likely dozens and dozens of athletes in all the major sports who have simply not been “caught”.
Baseball czar Bud Selig now triumphantly talks of dealing with this issue, when he was part of a clique that ignored the issue for years— when it served the purposes of promoting baseball after the devastating strike of 1994.
There are no football players on steroids in the NFL? In the NCAA?
C’mon.
The Palmeiro situation again gives us an excuse to dance around the real issues, and focus almost exclusively on him. Like Ben Johnson before him, the only difference between Palmeiro and the countless other athletes — professional and “amateur” — who used or still use performance-enhancing drugs is that they got caught. The real hypocrisy rests perhaps not with Rafael Palmeiro, but with the rest of us.
Thursday, September 1, 2005
Questions Regarding the Lifting of the Bertuzzi Suspension
The unseemly haste with which Hockey Canada invited Todd Bertuzzi to participate in the recent Team Canada Olympic orientation camp in Western Canada struck many observers as at best ironic and, at worst, crass.
At that camp, how ironic was it to see Canadian players wearing Team Canada practice jerseys with the “STOP” patch on the back of their jerseys? (The STOP patch was designed to remind youth-level hockey players never to hit an opposing player from behind, because of the high risk of injury.)
Ironic, in that Hockey Canada administrators have been preaching to young players and coaches for years (and rightly so) about the very real dangers of hitting opposing players from behind.
Yet Todd Bertuzzi, the perpetrator of one of the most blatant and dangerous “hits from behind” in hockey history, was invited to play for Team Canada within minutes of his suspension being lifted.
With this as a backdrop, there are some basic questions that either have not been asked as people debate this issue, or have not been adequately answered.
- If Todd Bertuzzi was not an NHL “superstar”, would his suspension have been more severe?
- Why are some ‘fans’ actually applauding Todd Bertuzzi? (Because he is back playing? Because he said he was sorry? Because he is a star player?)
- Yes, Todd Bertuzzi has said he is “sorry” for his actions. Did we expect him to say he wasn’t sorry?
- Bertuzzi says he has had sleepless nights. How many sleepless nights has Steve Moore likely experienced?
- How much, if any, subtle or not so subtle persuasion — or outright lobbying — occurred involving Team Canada officials and the NHL?
- Bertuzzi has said he believes in forgiveness and second chances. Is it easier to “believe” in those things when you are the one who caused harm to someone else?
- What would Bertuzzi be saying now if he was the individual who was physically handicapped because of the cowardly actions of another player?
- Bertuzzi has said he just wants to “get back to playing”, essentially ignoring Steve Moore’s current reality. (Moore is unable to play hockey.) But how would Bertuzzi feel if he lost his livelihood not just for 17 months, but for the rest of his life, as is likely the case with Steve Moore, if someone had jumped him from behind?
- Even if Steve Moore were to somehow regain the physical and emotional strength required to play at the NHL level, what NHL club would sign him, given the obvious politics involved?
- How many people have noticed how NHL stars, including Avalanche players who were teammates of Steve Moore, have fallen into line publicly, stating their support of and for Bertuzzi?
- Why are some of these star players talking as though Steve Moore is “doing better”, when in fact Moore and his representatives are saying he still faces a monumental struggle ahead? Where is the evidence he is doing better? Or is that just a line some players are using in public to try to make this go away?
- If any of us were in Steve Moore’s shoes, how would we feel watching Todd Bertuzzi play and earn millions of dollars, while our career was likely over and we still couldn’t do ‘normal’ daily tasks comfortably?
- Why is the hockey community seeming to shun Steve Moore?
- How are young Canadian children now supposed to react to those “It’s just a game” ads from Hockey Canada that have been appearing for so long? Is the message that the values supported in those public service announcements should apply to parents and youth, but not to NHL superstars?
At that camp, how ironic was it to see Canadian players wearing Team Canada practice jerseys with the “STOP” patch on the back of their jerseys? (The STOP patch was designed to remind youth-level hockey players never to hit an opposing player from behind, because of the high risk of injury.)
Ironic, in that Hockey Canada administrators have been preaching to young players and coaches for years (and rightly so) about the very real dangers of hitting opposing players from behind.
Yet Todd Bertuzzi, the perpetrator of one of the most blatant and dangerous “hits from behind” in hockey history, was invited to play for Team Canada within minutes of his suspension being lifted.
With this as a backdrop, there are some basic questions that either have not been asked as people debate this issue, or have not been adequately answered.
- If Todd Bertuzzi was not an NHL “superstar”, would his suspension have been more severe?
- Why are some ‘fans’ actually applauding Todd Bertuzzi? (Because he is back playing? Because he said he was sorry? Because he is a star player?)
- Yes, Todd Bertuzzi has said he is “sorry” for his actions. Did we expect him to say he wasn’t sorry?
- Bertuzzi says he has had sleepless nights. How many sleepless nights has Steve Moore likely experienced?
- How much, if any, subtle or not so subtle persuasion — or outright lobbying — occurred involving Team Canada officials and the NHL?
- Bertuzzi has said he believes in forgiveness and second chances. Is it easier to “believe” in those things when you are the one who caused harm to someone else?
- What would Bertuzzi be saying now if he was the individual who was physically handicapped because of the cowardly actions of another player?
- Bertuzzi has said he just wants to “get back to playing”, essentially ignoring Steve Moore’s current reality. (Moore is unable to play hockey.) But how would Bertuzzi feel if he lost his livelihood not just for 17 months, but for the rest of his life, as is likely the case with Steve Moore, if someone had jumped him from behind?
- Even if Steve Moore were to somehow regain the physical and emotional strength required to play at the NHL level, what NHL club would sign him, given the obvious politics involved?
- How many people have noticed how NHL stars, including Avalanche players who were teammates of Steve Moore, have fallen into line publicly, stating their support of and for Bertuzzi?
- Why are some of these star players talking as though Steve Moore is “doing better”, when in fact Moore and his representatives are saying he still faces a monumental struggle ahead? Where is the evidence he is doing better? Or is that just a line some players are using in public to try to make this go away?
- If any of us were in Steve Moore’s shoes, how would we feel watching Todd Bertuzzi play and earn millions of dollars, while our career was likely over and we still couldn’t do ‘normal’ daily tasks comfortably?
- Why is the hockey community seeming to shun Steve Moore?
- How are young Canadian children now supposed to react to those “It’s just a game” ads from Hockey Canada that have been appearing for so long? Is the message that the values supported in those public service announcements should apply to parents and youth, but not to NHL superstars?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)