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.

Another coach sets an example – a bad one

It’s difficult to criticize anyone for accepting the job of their dreams, in any walk of life.

But this kind of very personal decision becomes a little more tangled when it affects the lives of others—specifically dozens of young people you vigorously recruited and asked to follow you and make a 100% commitment to see a project through.

Now, given the reality of college football, there is no ideal time to plan your departure as a coach. At some point you will leave when players you recruited are still on campus.

But a recent coaching appointment in the United States doesn’t sit well.

My reference point is University of Cincinnati football coach Brian Kelly. He is leaving his post at the University, where he did, by all accounts, a tremendous job, to take on the head coaching job at Notre Dame.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with going to where you want to be.

But like a number of coaches before him in recent years, Coach Kelly, at least on the surface, seems to have let some people down. According to media reports, he had informed his players after the last game of the regular season that he was staying at Cincinnati. He apparently denied a serious interest in the Notre Dame position, though, in fairness, he did concede he would listen to what Notre Dame Officials had to say.

Here is a revealing excerpt from an ESPN.com story by Brian Bennett on December 5, written before Coach Kelly met with Notre Dame Officials and eventually accepted the post on December 10, all of five days later:

But two Bearcats players said Kelly told the team on Thursday that he wouldn't leave Cincinnati.

"He said, 'It's not an issue; I'm not going there,' “safety Aaron Webster said. "He said, 'I love Cincinnati, and I'm staying here.' "

When asked by an ESPN.com reporter after the game whether he had indeed told his players that, Kelly declined to discuss the issue. That also was his stance in the post-game news conference.

"I'm not going to talk about any job situations," said Kelly, whose team clinched its second straight Big East title. "I'm going to enjoy this victory.

"Let's talk about back-to-back-championship teams and these kids."

Kelly also chided the media for spreading what he called "misinformation" and added, "You folks need to get a handle on this, because it's ridiculous."

Kelly has been rumored to be one of Notre Dame's top candidates and told the ESPN this week that he would "entertain" a request from the Irish to speak to him after the Pitt game.

Wide receiver Mardy Gilyard said his coach was emphatic about not leaving in his talk to the team Thursday.

"He said, 'All this foolishness about me trying to go somewhere, that's just foolish,' " Gilyard said.”Coach Kelly, he made us strongly feel [he wasn't leaving]. It's almost like when your mom tells you the sky is blue, and you just know it's blue. You don't even have to look outside.

"With Coach Kelly telling us he's not leaving, we know he's not going anywhere."

Gilyard and Webster, both seniors, have heard that before. Former coach Mark Dantonio told them he wasn't leaving three years ago—and then took the Michigan State job days later.

"There were different incentives then with Coach Dantonio," Gilyard said. "Coach Kelly always shoots it straight to us. In my opinion, I think he'll end up being the Bobby Bowden of Cincinnati, or our new Bob Huggins."

Now, those of us not on the “inside” truly have no idea what the circumstances are that led to all this. And we certainly aren’t privy to everything Coach Kelly actually said to his players before, during and after his discussions with Notre Dame. (I won’t even go into the aspect of blaming the media for supposed misinformation, when it is proven again that the media was in fact correct in their speculation. That’s a comment for another day.)

But it is disappointing to see Coach Kelly leave the team before the upcoming Bowl game in January. He has obviously decided that recruiting on behalf of his new school immediately is more important than seeing through his commitment to his current players—and the school administration that has paid him very well. (Imagine if college players were allowed to leave school and go play for another school because they had a “better” opportunity at the new school to play in a Bowl game.)

Coach Kelly is free to make that choice; just as the West Virginia (now University of Michigan) Coach Rich Rodriguez did a couple of years ago, leaving his team before a big Bowl game. Much like Bobby Petrino left the NFL Atlanta Falcons suddenly, during the NFL season, to take a college job, and Nick Saban, after denying his obvious interest, left the Miami Dolphins to become Coach at the University of Alabama within days of his public pronouncements to the contrary.

I just always find it amazing. These coaches preach non-stop about loyalty, commitment, going to battle together—all the things associated with being a “team guy”.

But when they get the opportunity for a “better” job, they can’t run fast enough for the more prestigious, or lucrative, position.

Again, it’s understandable to go for the job you’ve always dreamed of. For Coach Kelly, Notre Dame is his dream job.

But even for those jobs, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it.

To me it’s clear that, while “recruiting” is tremendously important in U.S. college sports, completing your obligation to your current school should be assumed and accepted by all. Why wouldn’t Notre Dame step forward and agree that Kelly stay at Cincinnati until the Bowl game is completed.

There is no doubt there would be criticism about having distracted attentions, not to mention conflicted loyalties in that scenario.

But where is a person’s credibility when they deny, deny, either to their own players or to the media, then days later end up doing the very thing that they claimed they weren’t going to do?

And what message does this send to young people?

Patrick Kane: Beginning to understand

Patrick Kane is a wonderfully talented forward with the Chicago Black Hawks. He is already emerging as an extraordinary talent on the ice - a significant component of the major Hawk resurgence over the last year.

Off the ice, it’s been a bit more of a struggle. This past summer, Kane was alleged to have been involved in an incident with a taxicab driver, leading to assault charges that were eventually dropped. (Kane pleaded guilty only to disorderly conduct.)

Athletes often face a burden - and a responsibility - that those in some other professions may not have to deal with in quite the same way. The expectations are high, even if they don’t necessarily include being a “role model”. Their perceived successes and failures on and off the ice/field – as well as their behaviour – occur in a very public setting.

They face often intense public scrutiny, fair or not. They are expected to be accountable on the playing field- and off.

For his part, Kane, in speaking with NHL.com recently, made some observations that suggest he has learned from his misstep this past summer. The story indicated Kane has changed the manner in which he conducts himself in public.

"I still feel I'm the same kid at heart. Obviously situations like that open your eyes a little bit. It was a tough situation. You never want to go through that. Obviously, the only story you guys heard was what the cab driver said,” Kane is quoted as saying.

"The worst kind of came out of the situation, but at the same time, I think maybe it was better that it happened sooner rather than later. You can take a positive from a bad situation. Pretty much every (situation) I treat now, when I'm out to dinner or walking down the street, I'm going to treat like it's going to be publicized, and like it's going to be put in the media."

I always try to tell my young clients in the sports field, “You can be yourself. Just be your best self”.

An NHL agent whose clients I have advised on occasion over the years told me some time ago that he regularly reminds the athletes he represents to behave in public expecting to run into someone they know- and whose opinion matters to them.

It’s great advice for all of us, and nudges people-high-profile or not- to be aware that behaviour matters, wherever you are.

Clemmensen and the team player approach

Sometimes a comment made in frustration can taint a player’s reputation.

A couple of weeks ago, Florida Panthers goaltender Scott Clemmensen was quoted as saying something to reporters that hundreds of goalies before him at various levels of hockey have probably thought. The comment: he described his team’s defensive zone coverage when the puck was in the slot as “total chaos”.

By all accounts Clemmensen has been a respected player. He has largely been a back-up goalie at the NHL level, but last season was thrust into the number one job when New Jersey all-star Martin Broduer was felled by a serious injury. Clemmensen stepped up and played well, landing a free agent contract this past off-season.

But in his first 4 games this season, he gave up 16 goals, and his comments were likely not welcomed by the coaching staff (who establish the team’s system”) or teammates.

Florida Head coach Peter DeBoer , not amused, didn’t even mention Clemmensen by name when he was quoted the in the newspaper in a story I saw circulated by the National Post.

“I understand where a goaltender who has let in (12) goals in his last two starts would be frustrated, but it’s misdirected,” DeBoer is quoted as telling the Florida Sun Sentinel. “When things aren’t going well, I think it’s important we all self-reflect and see what we can do better in order to help the situation. I don’t think finger-pointing is real productive at this point.”

Being a team player is easy to talk about but hard to be sometimes when things aren’t going your way.

But just like credibility is something that takes a long time to earn but can be thrown away in an instant, having a reputation as a team guy can be lost quickly, too.

It’s a lesson for young athletes to keep in mind.