Around The NHL 2021/22

[Brandon]

23 minutes ago, Goalie said:

You know who also didn't say anything else at the time? Kyle Beach. I feel for the guy but he kept quiet himself 

Is it possible that he kept quiet because of shame?   

Is it possible that he is speaking up now because he wants a nice fat pay day and a book deal?  

 

Lots of people speculating and throwing stones without having a clue and believing everything that they read off the internet.   That goes for both sides.  

[TrueBlue4ever]

31 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

At the very least, Cheveldayoff is part of a conspiracy of silence.  

As I previously stated, the Graham James case made everyone in hockey aware this depravity could happen more than 10 years before this happened and everyone in that room thought the best course of action was to sweep it under the rug and forget about it.

There is no excuse for the ongoing silence.

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. 

Edited October 29, 2021 by TrueBlue4ever

[Wideleft]

10 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

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. 

I'm fine with a very long list.  My focus on Chevy has more to do with his role with the Jets on a Jets discussion board than me saying he's solely to blame.

Chevy wasn't (as some suggest) some low rung shlub.  His position with the Hawks was the reason he became the GM of the Jets.  

He works side by side with a guy who was a close associate of Graham James - no secret in the hockey world.

Maybe we need to argue about whether Chevy has a conscience.  Can't think that a guy who sees Zinger on a regular basis hasn't thought about Kyle Beach on dozens of occasions.

He was in a position of leadership.  A true leader is someone who does the right thing, even when it is the difficult thing.

Edited October 29, 2021 by Wideleft

[TrueBlue4ever]

29 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

Staying silent for 11 years is active enough for me.

 

We don’t know that he stayed silent for 11 years. We know it did not come out for 11 years, but to say he willingly stayed silent is not proven, and WILLINGLY is the key word. You hear an allegation, you see the party responsible removed from the team shortly thereafter, are you in the wrong for not ensuring that every proper step was followed by those handling it?

So is Cheveldayoff responsible for following up after Aldrich leaves the team to track his movements and ensure he never gets hired anywhere again? Is he wrong to see Aldrich let go and assume that the matter was dealt with by the management team who said they would deal with it? (Without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight). And if 6 weeks after the meeting action has been taken, is it wrong of him to assume that is was handled, and hold him to 11 more years of self-investigation where he is not knowingly staying silent, because there is nothing in his mind to suggest there is silence going on? And is he responsible for going to Beach and demanding that this be taken to the police, and that Beach compelled as the victim to testify at trial, because anything short of that can be seen in hindsight 11 years later as a cover-up? Of course not.

We can absolutely see gaps in the chain of command, but he can’t be held to the standard of what we now know, only what he knew or did not know in the context of the facts at the time, and in the context of what others knew and relayed to him. And those questions should be answered before we deem him safe or fireable. Too many on either side want to jump the gun and come to a conclusion. 

[FrostyWinnipeg]

8 hours ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

The NHLPA knew about his complaint and offered counselling but took no legal action on his behalf or investigated the complaint. 

RIP Fehr.

[Wideleft]

7 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

52 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

Staying silent for 11 years is active enough for me.

 

We don’t know that he stayed silent for 11 years. We know it did not come out for 11 years, but to say he willingly stayed silent is not proven, and WILLINGLY is the key word. You hear an allegation, you see the party responsible removed from the team shortly thereafter, are you in the wrong for not ensuring that every proper step was followed by those handling it?

So is Cheveldayoff responsible for following up after Aldrich leaves the team to track his movements and ensure he never gets hired anywhere again? Is he wrong to see Aldrich let go and assume that the matter was dealt with by the management team who said they would deal with it? (Without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight). And if 6 weeks after the meeting action has been taken, is it wrong of him to assume that is was handled, and hold him to 11 more years of self-investigation where he is not knowingly staying silent, because there is nothing in his mind to suggest there is silence going on? And is he responsible for going to Beach and demanding that this be taken to the police, and that Beach compelled as the victim to testify at trial, because anything short of that can be seen in hindsight 11 years later as a cover-up? Of course not.

We can absolutely see gaps in the chain of command, but he can’t be held to the standard of what we now know, only what he knew or did not know in the context of the facts at the time, and in the context of what others knew and relayed to him. And those questions should be answered before we deem him safe or fireable. Too many on either side want to jump the gun and come to a conclusion. 

Expand  

Is it a rush to judgement or are people sick and tired of a hockey culture that hasn't given 2 sh!ts about the abuse of players of all ages and genders?

[FrostyWinnipeg]

Chevy survives...for now....

 

Edited October 29, 2021 by FrostyWinnipeg

[Jesse]

1 hour ago, Goalie said:

Online rumors seem to suggest Chevy really wasn't in the know as much as some have suggested by twisting words in prepared statements.  Rumors are Bettman won't be coming down as hard. Possible fine as Chevy was just a rookie non participant really.  It will be up to chipper and Chevy.  Should he lose his Job? I'm not sure because it sounds like he has been telling the truth. The others lied and Q leaving likely has to do with a recommendation later for Aldrich to notre Dame who . Nobody following them will be shocked... they didn't cooperate with the investigation 

Rookie low level ahl gm but only in title as there is no online history showing Chevy as actual gm of Rockford weirdly enough so in title but no real say told about sexual harassment which is different than sexual assault in the legal terms. Was told it would be taken care of.. 3 weeks later... it Is. 

We got a lot of Jesus's online who need to jump off the cross a bit and put themselves in that position. Your a 1st year guy.. you ain't saying **** and likely feel 3 weeks Is sufficient. It's above your head really. 

 

I'm sorry man, I don't buy what you're selling.

Chevy was not some low-level AHL gm. He was the Assistant General Manager. He was the senior management team. If he is telling the "truth", it means he was aware while Aldrich groped an intern after this was reported, was aware while Aldrich got his day with the Stanley Cup, was aware when Aldrich took other jobs, was aware when Aldrich volunteered at a high school.

Your best case is that he held his hands over his ears and said I don't want to know. That is not a person I deem qualified to be an NHL GM where he might have to face this situation again.

[Jesse]

Well, Chevy is getting off without discipline, so you have your wish, I guess.

[Wideleft]

And Cheveldayoff skates....

[FrostyWinnipeg]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/zach-whitecloud-contract-extension-vegas-golden-knights-1.6229689

[Jesse]

1 minute ago, Wideleft said:

And Cheveldayoff skates....

This seems to take everything that Chevy says at face value...while taking Kyle Beach's account with a grain of salt.

[TrueBlue4ever]

18 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

I'm fine with a very long list.  My focus on Chevy has more to do with his role with the Jets on a Jets discussion board than me saying he's solely to blame.

Chevy wasn't (as some suggest) some low rung shlub.  His position with the Hawks was the reason he became the GM of the Jets.  

He works side by side with a guy who was a close associate of Graham James - no secret in the hockey world.

Maybe we need to argue about whether Chevy has a conscience.  Can't think that a guy who sees Zinger on a regular basis hasn't thought about Kyle Beach on dozens of occasions.

He was in a position of leadership.  A true leader is someone who does the right thing, even when it is the difficult thing.

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. 

[Wideleft]

5 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

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. 

Never suggested anyone knew the exact details because Beach himself said he did not give them.  All I said that his complaint was more than enough to justify a full investigation.  Should also have called for an immediate suspension of Aldrich.

It's been well established that James' behavior was well-known before the charges were laid.

The Jets are now left with a stench that is going to be hard to get rid of without a good disinfection.  Don't see this episode creating a lot of new season ticket subscriptions.

[M.O.A.B.]

So are the people here that wanting Chevy disciplined, going to boycott the Jets now?

Just asking for a friend.

Edited October 29, 2021 by M.O.A.B.

[JCon]

2 minutes ago, M.O.A.B. said:

So are the people here that wanting Chevy disciplined, going to boycott the Jets now?

Just asking for a friend.

I'm not giving any money to True North. 

[Wideleft]

3 minutes ago, M.O.A.B. said:

So are the people here that wanting Chevy disciplined, going to boycott the Jets now?

Just asking for a friend.

Can't afford going anyway, so it'll be pretty hard to boycott financially.

They've got a stain and I'm hoping that some season ticket holders will cancel if they don't clean house.

Bettman had to let someone in the chain off before it made it all the way back to him.  

[Jesse]

8 minutes ago, M.O.A.B. said:

So are the people here that wanting Chevy disciplined, going to boycott the Jets now?

Just asking for a friend.

I will not be giving money to True North going forward.

[TrueBlue4ever]

35 minutes ago, Jesse said:

This seems to take everything that Chevy says at face value...while taking Kyle Beach's account with a grain of salt.

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. 

[Jesse]

Just now, TrueBlue4ever said:

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. 

Not the case. Because there were weeks after that meeting. Weeks where players made references to it. Weeks where Aldrich groped an intern.

Months where Aldrich got to celebrate as a Stanley Cup champion. 

He wants to claim ignorance? I don't want an ignorant general manager.

[M.O.A.B.]

 

So which is true is Chevy a member or not member of the Hawks senior leadership then?

[M.O.A.B.]

8 minutes ago, Jesse said:

Not the case. Because there were weeks after that meeting. Weeks where players made references to it. Weeks where Aldrich groped an intern.

Months where Aldrich got to celebrate as a Stanley Cup champion. 

He wants to claim ignorance? I don't want an ignorant general manager.

Are we sure if Chevy is always with the team and was present when these things happened and he is not in some place or country busy scouting prospects (I would assume being the Assistant GM that’s one of his role)?

[Jesse]

32 minutes ago, M.O.A.B. said:

 

So which is true is Chevy a member or not member of the Hawks senior leadership then?

I'm not sure how anyone can pretend that the Assistant GM isn't senior management (while also saying the coach is).

It reeks of PR/damage control.

[iHeart]

I think Chevy should still pay for this, Jeff has a point  this may be in the organizations hands. Chevy wasn't being honest about this in the summer right?

Edited October 29, 2021 by iHeart

[FrostyWinnipeg]

27 minutes ago, iHeart said:

I think Chevy should still pay for this, Jeff has a point  this may be in the organizations hands. Chevy wasn't being honest about this in the summer right?

Deleting would leave digital trail? Hmmmm, too FBI for me.