TrueBlue4ever

Saskatchewan was actually picked by the majority to finish 4th or 5th in the West, based on a weak offensive line. They were the consensus #4 team out of the West. Calgary was pegged as the #1 team by almost all of 3DN. Edmonton was the most overrated as the consensus #2, with the Bombers in third. In the East, Hamilton was the unanimous #1, Ottawa was almost a unanimous #4, and Montreal shaded just ahead of Toronto as consensus #2, although 5 of the 9 writers picked the Argos to finish ahead of the Als (a pair who thought the Argos would finish last drops their overall ranking below Montreal). So based on where things stand, Hamilton was overrated as far as to where they would finish, the rest of the East is panning out as predicted. In the West Calgary and especially Edmonton were overrated, Winnipeg and Saskatchewan were underrated, and BC is just above what was predicted. The silliest rationale I found was were media said the Bombers would suffer by bringing back the core and not making enough changes to compete with the other teams who made moves, while at the same time saying Hamilton would dominate for precisely the same reason that their core was kept intact. Lazy analysis.

Maybe these will help. Any other favourites out there?

If you uttered those words in Strawberries back in the day you would have been punched.

Only if one assumes that everything that is known now is exactly what was known at that meeting. And a lot of specific was not included in that original meeting. In the end, I am not surprised with this decision. The danger of “broad brush” the NHL wants to avoid is a matter of self-preservation too, because they dragged their heels on an investigation. And protects the NHLPA would could have done more than they did. And the rest of the Hawk organization (players, staff, media, and any others who heard anything). If the standard was “anyone who knew anything and did not act is complicit by their silence” then it would open up the whole league to being shut down on some level. So legally, the line has been drawn and Cheveldayoff is on the good side of that line. Morally is a whole different issue, and many have already cast their votes. Fans who are upset can still petition the club or speak with their wallets. I am certain the local media will have few opinion columns about this.

I agree that he is not low-rung, as evidenced by his presence at the meeting. Personally that carries weight with me, but I don’t get to make the final decision. You also assume that he knew the exact details of what happened to Beach from the get go, therefore would be reminded of his complicity every time he saw Zinger. We don’t know exactly what he knew and when he knew it. Unless I am missing something in the report. Beach did not make a full complaint until after he heard about the Michigan player, which was some time after 2013, and Chevy was gone by then so he would not be privy to any ongoing involvement with Beach and the Hawksn. Beach found out by doing a random Google search. Can anyone say Chevy knew about that incident either? As for Heisinger, working with Graham James in 1984 and being a reference in 1994 for the Calgary job, two years before any allegation sever came out against James, is a far cry from knowing what he did and being silent. But the media would like to connect those dots in a way, hence the Lyons article suggesting Heisinger is unfit to be GM because of who he knew, and not what he knew. And easy to say “well he should condemn and he didn’t” without knowing the full contact of the conversation with Lyons and how Lyons is quoting him. If you saw Jeff Hamilton’s line of questioning to Paul Maurice and only got Maurice’s “I can’t comment” you might say Maurice is covering up. But when you hear Hamilton’s initial questions about how this news has affected the dressing room, and why is this more prevalent in hockey than anywhere else, and Maurice’s comment is “I don’t know that it is more prevalent in hockey than anywhere else” and then gets challenged by Hamilton (who points out he did 3 years research for a story) and accuses Maurice of “waxing poetic” on all sorts of things but being strangely right-lipped about this, the statement “I can’t comment, I have not done three years of research on it and I have not seen the final Beach report yet, so let me look at it and I will be better able to answer questions after tonight’s game” takes on a whole different meaning. And this is directly from Hamilton’s Twitter feed, so I am quoting his words for that interaction. Bottom line, we don’t have the full story yet, and as important as investigative journalism is, we should not jump the gun based on partial information and media spin about who knows what and who should be held to account before both sides of the story are out in full.

That is an assumption that has yet to be proven as it relates to EVERYONE in the room. And that is the issue. McDonough said he would handle it and did not. He is covering up. Quenneville did not want it being discussed because it would distract from the Cup run. He also lied to the press in 2021 when he said he had no knowledge of any incident before being asked by the press at that moment. He is covering up. Cheveldayoff has said he was not aware of anything until just prior to Alsrich’s termination with the club. Loose language but not a lie. But if you want to say the standard is “whoever knew and did not ensure an investigation happened is culpable” OK that’s fine and maybe is the correct approach to take and the only way to ensure that this never happens again, but then get a very long list ready. Because you can add all the players, media who were within earshot when things were said according to Beach himself, the mental health coach who reported it and by all accounts did the right thing, but did not ensure that the investigation happened or that Aldrich was never hired again (so did he not go far enough and should he be held accountable?), the NHLPA who offered counselling but did not demand a further investigation, or the NHL who had to be kicked dragging and screaming into an investigation despite a whole summer or rumours. I think Chevy is on the inside of this, and in enough of a power position here, that he is to be held accountable. But to assume he willingly engaged in a cover-up when the report has not directly linked him to that is jumping the gun, and using a blanket approach of complicity by silence really opens the flood gates to a ton of people and can put an unfair legal burden on some who may not be in a position to do anything of consequence or have an honest belief others with more power will do it.

Yes it is very simple. But how complicated does it get if Chevy did not knowingly go along with it, had no intention of sweeping it under the rug, and was kept out of the loop from McDonough’s, Bowman’s and Quenneville’s decision-making? And based a wrong assumption on seeing Aldrich removed from the team? But who refused to do so? We know McDonough did, and Quenneville wanted it kept quiet. Bowman was privy to more than just that one meeting so he was involved in the follow-up and seemingly took more responsibility to ensure the right things were done or not done. Can anyone say with certainty that Cheveldayoff was active in the cover-up? The report does not go there. So, is being is the room enough to implicate him? A simple question but maybe not a black and white answer.

What I am suggesting is that one possibility is that Cheveldayoff was told at the meeting that McDonough would handle it by McDonough himself (Bowman’s account seems to corroborate this), saw that Aldrich was no longer on the team a few weeks later, and was unaware that he had been given the option to resign vs face an investigation, and was also not privy to the positive job review written by Quenneville. I am not saying how it was handled was sufficient, but that Cheveldayoff may have had no idea that it was handled that way. But because he was “in the room” it is being assumed he was part of every decision made. His account is very sparse on facts (not a good look, but maybe truly how he remembers it), his subsequent non-speak to the media may be justified by the fact that there is still an active lawsuit and he doesn’t want it tried in the media ahead of time (which is clearly happening, and as disgusting as the story is, everyone is still entitled to due process in the law and should not be pre-judged online or in the media). It is a bad look from a moral point of view, but if Cheveldayoff was left in the dark (and yes, I have read the report, and beyond being present at the meeting, no one points the finger at him in any way as being part of a cover-up like Quenneville or McDonough wanted, or taking or being directed to take responsibility like Bowman or McDonough did. So is being in the meeting and nothing else enough to get him axed? And if yes, what of everyone else who knew but did not independently act to ensure everything was done that did not get done?

Agreed. So does it end with Chevy? Because there are a bunch more who knew and said nothing and did not press the matter, and if guilt by association is the standard, then more heads should roll. This is the tricky part with Cheveldayoff, if you take him at his word. He was privy to information about misconduct with a player, Beach acknowledges that he kept the specific details to himself for some time, so how much they knew is a live question. It seems to be common consensus that the decision at that meeting was that the hockey ops people would continue to focus on hockey and the management side (president and Vice President) would address the issue. Aldrich was let go a month later. Could Chevy have reasonably assumed that the matter had been handled after an internal investigation based on the result? And did he have the power as an AGM handling cap space issues to challenge the team President? Was he aware of the positive job review Quenneville wrote? Was he aware of the later hiring of Aldrich to a Michigan high school? Unlike Quenneville, he has not been caught in a lie, and has been cooperative with the investigation, from what we’ve been told. For the record, I think his answers have been non-committal and greasy enough that it is not acceptable to keep him on, but that is my lone opinion. Just raising these questions to determine where the line is drawn between having full knowledge, having partial knowledge, being assigned to deal with it, or being told it was being handled, to actively discouraging any action? If the baseline is “if you know you tell” then there is a long line of coaches, staff, players, apparently media according to Beach, and sadly Beach himself, who never reported it to police because he felt trapped, which allowed the subsequent assault at Michigan to happen. Surely Beach cannot be punished for his inaction given his place in it all, but where does the “you know and YOU had a responsibility to report while this person knew but they don’t” line get drawn. Maybe the simple line of “if you were in that meeting and were management in any capacity that is he line” but it may inculcate some who were there but did not hold true power, and may exculpatory others who knew but deferred to others when they could have spoken up. Not a black and white issue, as much as the NHL would like to fit it into a tidy box.

So if/when Chevy resigns or is let go, how quickly does the story die? He would be the last one in that meeting so from the media and NHL perspective, I would wager that would represent the accountability that is being demanded from many quarters. But how far should this reach? The NHLPA knew about his complaint and offered counselling but took no legal action on his behalf or investigated the complaint. The NHL at first did not want to investigate either until the media made noise. According to Beach his teammates all knew yet none of them are being forced to be kicked out of the league. Beach said comments were made in practice to him by teammates in front of other players, coaches and media. Should that media also be held accountable for not saying anything? And of Steve Lyon wants to go after Heisinger because of his connection to Graham James, then should Joe Sakic be removed from Colorado and have his name removed from the Cup since he was a player on the Broncos when James coached, and he never spoke out about what was an open secret in Swifr Current. And if the answer there is no because as a player Sakic had limited power to do anything, then does Chevy get any benefit of the explanation that he was not the decision-maker in that meeting as merely the cap management guy Chicago, or has the decision already been made to remove him to help the league save face (all while the court case is still ongoing with a private report now being made very public and rendering any fair due process in the courts moot with the media and court of public opinion having already passed judgment)? How far down the rabbit hole will this go?

Found the other two. 1991 was Pal Sartori and 2000 was co-coordinators Dickie Adams and Joe Perella.

We could keep debating LaPo. 🤣🤣🤣

The 07 Cup ones worked better with the white pants than the blue, IMO. But these gold ones were terrible.

Ugh, the all-gold. Not the 07 Grey Cup ones, the 2013 when they combined the gold tops with the gold pants for a game in Toronto. Just threw up in my mouth a bit.

Fun fact - we are undefeated wearing these………things. Only worn once, we beat the Als. I did not mind the lightning bolt on the pants as it was a nice nod to the 50’s and 60’s teams, but the blue pants, blue helmet, no. And the lightning bolt logo was hit and miss, better with the white “W” than the blue. But the royals are the best no question. I think the excuse was they did not manufacture that shade of blue so they went darker. Seems strange as an explanation, since we were able to go back to it.

Part of the bigger concern is the “talking out of school” mindset. The victim says everyone on the team knew, he heard slurs at practice and was asked if he liked the oral sex, but somehow that stuff was kept in house. Victim said in his TSN interview things like that were said in the presence of teammates, coaches, and media around practice. When Graham James was coaching Swift Current, I knew guys playing in the WHL who said opposing players would go to the Bronco bench during games and taunt them, asking who coach was blowing that week. This culture of silence is what allowed it to happen, and allowed the Michigan player to be sexually assaulted three years later, because despite the knowledge of management, no one did anything to make sure Aldrich was kept from getting hired again and whitewashed any investigation. So if Chevy felt that top management was handling it as evidenced by the resignation, he would have noticed Aldrich still at the parade, name on the Cup, getting a ring, and could reasonably have asked “why is he still in contact with the players?” That is the argument that will determine his fate.

Winnipeg - has clinched first place, first round bye, and will host Wast Final Saskatchewan - can clinch playoff spot with a win AND a BC loss AND an Edmonton loss or tie. Calgary - no clinching or elimination possibility this week BC - no clinching or elimination possibility this week, but can finish no better than 3rd with a loss AND a Saskatchewan win Edmonton - eliminated from playoff contention with a loss AND a Calgary win AND a win or tie by Saskatchewan Montreal - can clinch a playoff spot with a win AND a Calgary loss or a win AND a BC loss Toronto - can clinch a playoff spot with a win AND a Calgary loss or a win AND a BC loss Hamilton - no clinching or elimination possibility this week Ottawa - eliminated from playoff contention

I will add this having done some more looking into stuff. The media are jumping on Cheveldayoff‘s comments from July. He was asked if he knew anything about the allegations. Quenneville was asked the same thing. Q said he did not know a thing until the media brought it up that summer. This is clearly a lie since he was at the meeting in 2010. Cheveldayoff’s answer was that he did not know until he was asked if he was aware of anything “just prior” to Aldrich’s departure from the club. The meeting was May 23 and the resignation was June 29. So “technically” it could be argued the meeting was “just prior” to his departure, albeit a bit of a stretch. Bottom line, as someone else put it, not a lie but greasy as hell. And his statement yesterday was more of the same, not really saying anything and just deferring to the “won’t say anything while the investigation continues, report speaks for itself” storyline. In the end, he looks guilty by dodging questions, but he may not owe the media anything anyway, and legally it is best not to put your case in the public eye first. So should he be fired if he knew, but had people above him saying they would deal with it so he sat back and did nothing? Since he was part of the senior executive and privy to the meeting, one could speculate he had some power to influence the decision. If I were the Jets, I think a suspension pending the completion of Bettman’s discussion is the best course. If it is determined he played part in or acquiesced to a cover-up, then he will almost certainly be shown the door. If he honestly felt the higher-ups were taking care of it and had no say in the process, then he gets to stay.

Nah, he wouldn’t do that. He has class.

I read the 107 page report, though not in excessive detail. I did pay attention to the “meeting” section and what Cheveldayoff said. Which is not much. What I did notice is that none of the other parties referenced him in their discussions as being integral to the decisions. He was “just there”. So he had knowledge of an incident. How much detail is unclear, since the stories from that group diverge a bit. And some players say they knew nothing, others said everyone in the locker room knew. I suspect it’s closer to the latter, but it’s like a Peter Nygaard, Harvey Weinstein, Graham James situation where the rumours are out there, most people have heard the rumours and kind of “know” something bad is happening because of the number of stories out there, but have no direct proof, those who have direct proof are not coming forward, or when they come forward their proof is simply their word and they are a lone voice with no corroboration from other people, and those without proof figure someone else with more inside knowledge and power will deal with it. Chevy may not have known about the details, but he can’t deny he did not know there was a situation. But it was also said in the meeting that Bowman asked what should be done, Quenneville was concerned about raising the issue because he did not want a distraction during a Stanley Cup run (a terrible look, and one that should probably get him axed), and McDonough took Q’s side and told Bowman that he would handle it. Chevy and Blunk seem from those accounts to have just “been there” and not involved in any decision making, and it is generally accepted that McDonough said he would handle it. Now, when the coach is still around a few weeks later and lifting the Cup, logic dictates that this should have raised alarm bells with Chevy that nothing was being done. Can you fault him morally for that? Sure. Can you also understand his lack of action if he believes that his boss told the group that he would take care of it? Also yes. And when the guy was removed a couple of days later, would you be satisfied it had been handled, or would you dig further to see specifically what was done to ensure it was handled completely? Each of us will have a different stance on that based our own sense of responsibility and rationalization.

I bet if we dug hard enough into 3DN’s archives they too would have made unkind comments about O’Shea in the 2015 era.

Sports do not make us happy. They allow us to be miserable in a group. 🤣 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/07/17/uk-economists-prove-it-sports-destroy-happiness/%3foutputType=amp

Clever.

No it’s not. It’s filled with unsubstantiated speculation, misleading information, and flat out inaccuracies. At least it’s an attempt to create an argument using “facts” rather than the ridiculous “he’s arrogant, as proven by his arrogance” comment, but when the facts you use to bolster your credibility are factually incorrect, it kind of shoots holes in your overall argument. And if you need to make stuff up in an attempt to rip someone, then that deserves defending, in my mind.