[News] UPD: Friedman: Peters being officially removed as head coach is close

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I'm still rather focused on this part of the story, which I fear is getting overlooked:


I get that Brind'Amour wants to move on from the incident—that the team wanted to move on at the time—but isn't this just illustrative of the larger problem here? I think it is fair to consider Bill Peters an abuser with everything that has come out, including all the stuff from Carolina. But doesn't the decision made to handle this internally not also help to promote the perpetuation of abuse, and enable the abuser?

Some people have made a big deal about how much Treliving should have known about Bill Peters abusive behaviour. However, given the fact that Rod Brind'Amour is STILL of the opinion that burying the issue is an acceptable response to dealing with abuse, how confident can anyone be that this stuff would ever be disclosed after the fact?

You can’t be confident.

There is still and always will be a power imbalance.

Coaches control ice time, which directly impact opportunity to succeed, and there are always a number of justifications they can hide behind if they need to.

Having a hard line on the examples of physical abuse is possible, but trying to identify less obvious abuses of power will always be a challenge

[the2bears]

Wow. Spent the last few days up the coast in Mendocino and was off the grid. Did not expect to come back to this news.

Very happy to see the Flames taking this as seriously as it should be, and that they reacted right away. Peters is done, and he should be.

I read through this thread, lots of great thoughts and comments. One thing that I think hasn't had enough emphasis is the context of Peters' comments. His racist comments targeted a player, and he was in a position of power when he made them. This is one thing that makes Peters' act far worse than slurs spoken by players while on the ice. Doesn't excuse the latter, but makes a big difference in my opinion.

[The Yen Man]

Not gonna lie, the whole N word thing, even when I hear it in rap lyrics, it makes me uncomfortable. I get it's part of rap culture to use it in their lyrics, and apparently it's ok when a black person calls another black person that, where the intent behind the word being totally different than it being a racial slur. But it just blurs the line with the word, and it can cause confusion among people who aren't black who think all of sudden, there's times when it's ok to use the word.

Not saying it's ok for Peters to say what he said, and not saying I know what his intent was when using the word. But lets just say for the sake of argument he was using the word the same way he would use to describe country music as "hillbilly effing music", all of a sudden, it loses part to of the negative racial tone.

Just my opinion anyways. To be safe, I just never use the word at all. But I do get times where the word gets used and it wasn't intended to be a racial slur. (again, not saying that's the case with Peters here).

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

...Not saying it's ok for Peters to say what he said, and not saying I know what his intent was when using the word. But lets just say for the sake of argument he was using the word the same way he would use to describe country music as "hillbilly effing music", all of a sudden, it loses part to of the negative racial tone.

Just my opinion anyways. To be safe, I just never use the word at all. But I do get times where the word gets used and it wasn't intended to be a racial slur. (again, not saying that's the case with Peters here).

There is quite a bit of discussion about this in the other thread, but here is my response to another poster who raised a similar question, and attempted to argue on the basis of Peters's intent:

Originally Posted by Textcritic

First of all, the fact that it could have been worse does not in ANY WAY absolve Peters for his gross misbehaviour in this situation. It is not even worth considering.

Seen as an attack on the music itself? I think context is everything, here, and especially when carefully considering the reported verbiage in its entirety:

I have deliberately set my focus elsewhere on what Peters said to make a point: in no way can one separate what Peters said from whom he addressed. He singled out Akim Aliu—a black man—for his selection of music, and identified it as "n***** ####." There just is not any ambiguity there. Aliu further reported that Peters called him into his office to talk about the incident privately. This action in itself only serves to show that he definitely understood the connection between the music and the player. How could he not?

The explanation you have offered is not remotely plausible, as I have demonstrated by taking into consideration the entire citation, and its context.

No. This is not remotely likely. Or rather, it is not remotely likely that Peters was oblivious to the implications of singling out Aliu for his choice of music, and then describing it as "n***** ####."

That most certainly is part of the story, but you are also omitting an important part of this whole discussion. Aliu came out in the first place not call attention to the usage of racist language in hockey. He was prompted by reports of abuse surrounding Mike Babcock, and wanted to draw attention to an instance of abuse he suffered at the hand of Bill Peters, who went on to take actions which further damaged Aliu's hockey career.

The problem with Bill Peters and others like him is not [just] racism and anger management. IT'S BULLYING, AND THE ABUSE OF AUTHORITY.

[The Yen Man]

For sure, and again to reiterate, I'm not trying to defend Peters, or say he didn't use the phrase as a racial slur in this situation. I'm just saying in some other cases we hear about, I get confused sometimes on whether or not the word should ever be used, even if was meant in a totally different context.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

For sure, and again to reiterate, I'm not trying to defend Peters, or say he didn't use the phrase as a racial slur in this situation. I'm just saying in some other cases we hear about, I get confused sometimes on whether or not the word should ever be used, even if was meant in a totally different context.

I just don't think it is at all possible to separate Peters's intention from the offence and the outcome. It strains credulity to think that he was somehow unaware of the—at best implicit—racism in addressing his comments to a Nigerian-born black player. But moreover, it doesn't—it shouldn't—matter that his remarks are possibly construed less offensively. Even if this were true (I'm not sure it is) the fact of the matter is that what happened was completely unacceptable.

In tend to think that there is no appropriate usage for the word in question—it should never be used. But to clarify a somehow muddy situation, let's put it this way:

There is no acceptable context for my usage of the word. None. There is also no acceptable context for Peters's usage of the word. None.

[flamesfan1297]

I wonder what Don Cherrys opinion on this is, and what he would have said on HNIC about it

[Torture]

Originally Posted by flamesfan1297

I wonder what Don Cherrys opinion on this is, and what he would have said on HNIC about it

Said no-one ever.

If you really are curious I'm sure he'll have something to say:
https://open.spotify.com/show/4Mx00CeV9rJRN0C5jfNZ7n

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Not gonna lie, the whole N word thing, even when I hear it in rap lyrics, it makes me uncomfortable. I get it's part of rap culture to use it in their lyrics, and apparently it's ok when a black person calls another black person that, where the intent behind the word being totally different than it being a racial slur. But it just blurs the line with the word, and it can cause confusion among people who aren't black who think all of sudden, there's times when it's ok to use the word.

I've seen a similar sentiment here a few times now (namely suggestions that *no one* use the word), but don't recall seeing it addressed. African Americans and any other group that have been and are still targeted by the N word have *every right* to use it how they see fit. It's all about reappropriating and reclaiming the word. It's to show it has lost its power over them.

I agree, though, the word itself makes me feel uncomfortable. Very uncomfortable. I cannot even bring myself to say it as a quote of someone else. But I think this affect on me is a positive thing. I *should* feel the word is so inappropriate as to be impossible for me to say.

[Knut]

clicks Member List

Search for Sureloss. Clicks his name.

Clicks on "statistics"

Clicks on "Find All posts by Sureloss"

Ahhhhhhh. Sigh of relief

[TheGrimm]

Man, Hartley must have been some kind of monster for B.T. to consider Bill Peters the "just right" mix of hardass in light of all these recent accusations...

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by TheGrimm

Man, Hartley must have been some kind of monster for B.T. to consider Bill Peters the "just right" mix of hardass in light of all these recent accusations...

a. Hartley was pretty bad by all accounts.
b. If I was to guess, Peters buffaloed Treliving a bit and charmed him at the World Cup. Candidate interviews are pretty heavily weighted as far as decisions go in these situations.

[old-fart]

I wonder if there is any liability here on Carolina’s part. Presumably a call was made to Carolina to say “tell us about BIll”. If there were issues of abuse there that were undisclosed, does Carolina not have obligation (if not legal at least moral) to pass on those issues to Tre before the hire?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

Outside observation here and not an attempt to join this particular discussion...FDW your posts sure have seemed "angry" lately. Maybe I'm wrong, as I don't see everything. Anyway, hope all is well. Cheers

It's an astute observation. I have been grumpier and more irritable over the past few months than almost any other time in my life. I'd like to think its mostly because of my job situation where my manager has sewered team morale, snapped at us and made bizarre decisions that no one agrees with.

Also a factor may be the type of post that compels me to respond lately. I don't tend to respond to a lot of the normal types of conversation since somebody usually says my position quite well and I just thank that post. I tend to jump in when I think somebody says something really stupid and my tone when responding to that is quite a bit different then I would respond in the normal threads. I definitely lost some patience with the victim blaming and mental gymnastics some posters seem to be doing to excuse or minimize what Peters said. It's a touchy topic and I think many of us are running a bit hot about it.

Thanks for the kind words. I'm trying to be more amazing and beautiful but it sure feels like work, my boss and other things have got me down a bit the past few months.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by old-fart

I wonder if there is any liability here on Carolina’s part. Presumably a call was made to Carolina to say “tell us about BIll”. If there were issues of abuse there that were undisclosed, does Carolina not have obligation (if not legal at least moral) to pass on those issues to Tre before the hire?

I think they can say nothing. If they say something they can't lie.

In this situation, the relationships were tricky anyway.

[Wiggum_PI]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

a. Hartley was pretty bad by all accounts.
b. If I was to guess, Peters buffaloed Treliving a bit and charmed him at the World Cup. Candidate interviews are pretty heavily weighted as far as decisions go in these situations.

I really think the stories of how bad Hartley was are exaggerated. People were claiming how tough he was on guys like Gaudreau and Monahan, but they still went to his hockey camp after he got fired.

He's still the coach that's gotten the team further than Treliving's handpicked guys, and with a worse roster to work with.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

I really think the stories of how bad Hartley was are exaggerated. People were claiming how tough he was on guys like Gaudreau and Monahan, but they still went to his hockey camp after he got fired.

He's still the coach that's gotten the team further than Treliving's handpicked guys, and with a worse roster to work with.

Gaudreau and Monahan aren't the guys who are telling the stories. It's O'Brien, Sarich, Scott Parker, etc.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by old-fart

I wonder if there is any liability here on Carolina’s part. Presumably a call was made to Carolina to say “tell us about BIll”. If there were issues of abuse there that were undisclosed, does Carolina not have obligation (if not legal at least moral) to pass on those issues to Tre before the hire?

If that conversation took place, it most likely went something like this:

BT: "Hello, Rod Brind'Amour. You worked under Bill in his time in Carolina. Are the rumours I have heard about him true?"

RB: "Hi, Brad. Yeah, Bill's a hard-nosed coach who sometimes pushes boundaries, but when players and management made him aware of the problem he backed right off."

BT: "What sort of issues?"

RB: "I'd rather not get into it. We dealt with it internally, and everything has been fine since."

I suspect that this is a likely approximation for how vetting is conducted in the NHL. Hopefully, this changes.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

It's an astute observation. I have been grumpier and more irritable over the past few months than almost any other time in my life. I'd like to think its mostly because of my job situation where my manager has sewered team morale, snapped at us and made bizarre decisions that no one agrees with.

Also a factor may be the type of post that compels me to respond lately. I don't tend to respond to a lot of the normal types of conversation since somebody usually says my position quite well and I just thank that post. I tend to jump in when I think somebody says something really stupid and my tone when responding to that is quite a bit different then I would respond in the normal threads. I definitely lost some patience with the victim blaming and mental gymnastics some posters seem to be doing to excuse or minimize what Peters said. It's a touchy topic and I think many of us are running a bit hot about it.

Thanks for the kind words. I'm trying to be more amazing and beautiful but it sure feels like work, my boss and other things have got me down a bit the past few months.

That sucks, I hope things get better at work. Nobody should have to go every day to an environment that drags you down.

[MisterJoji]

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

I really think the stories of how bad Hartley was are exaggerated. People were claiming how tough he was on guys like Gaudreau and Monahan, but they still went to his hockey camp after he got fired.



He's still the coach that's gotten the team further than Treliving's handpicked guys, and with a worse roster to work with.

I agree. When Hartley was here he never talked negatively about anyone to the media, on the contrary, always seemed complimentary. Even when Gaudreau, Monahan and Bouma broke team tules and we’re suspended a game he said something along the lines of “no one robbed a bank but they broke the team rules and have to bear the consequences.” I still believe he deserved one more year after the absolute tank job goaltending was his last year.