TSN: 2 teammates independently corroborate Akim Aliu's allegations against Peters

[kukkudo]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

So much irrational lynching without the whole story going on in here as usual.

Dude you've exposed yourself, keep it moving.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

So much irrational lynching without the whole story going on in here as usual.

We got the only story we needed, corroboration for Aliu's version of events from other players indicate what Peters said and the context for how he said it.

We don't need anything else, and anything that Aliu did afterwards is irrelevant. The tone was set by Peters for their relationship going forward.

I'm actually seeing a lot of people saying early on "let's wait til we get the facts, and then determine what to do". When those facts came in, they weighed heavily on the side of "That's not okay, that's never okay. He needs to go. He cannot continue after confirmation of this incident."

That seems pretty rational to me actually. How are you still defending Peters after all this?

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

topfiverecords on the uneven bars in the mental gymnastics Olympics. Will he stick the landing, the crowd doesn't think so.

He made multiple racial slurs directed at the player and his choice of music, in front of at least two witnesses. I have no idea why you think the onus would be on the 20 year old player to tell the coach why he was offended. People have been offended by that slur for 150 years.

We're now talking about how one side's perspective of a multi-week period that stemmed from an incident is now official evidence that a player's career was changed forever.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Dragomir

Treliving needs to also be released after this. He’s done too much damage with most of his trades and can’t hire a competent coach to save his life. He’s just not a good GM.

Neither of those things have any relevance to Peters alleged indiscretions. Not to mention they aren’t true.

It’s actually asinine anyone could assign culpability to Tre on this. If you’re an exec hiring a manager for your business you speak to that manager’s former colleagues (other managers) and more likely his superiors. You pretty much never call his former employees asking for their opinions. It’s just not how hiring is done in most cases. You might look at the results of hat manager’s employees but you’d rarely talk to them directly.

Given the fact that most incidents went unreported it’s likely Tre didn’t know. And any incidents that were reported likely weren’t disclosed (Bowman).

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by nik-

I mean we pretty much have the whole story. Enough has come out at this point. Do we really need to wait until we hear a little bit more about why he's a pretty consistent prick over years?

Why can't people can't wait for both sides of a story to come out before making judgements?

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

We're now talking about how one side's perspective of a multi-week period that stemmed from an incident is now official evidence that a players career was changed forever.

The discussion isn't about his career at all, that's up for AA to speculate on himself. The fact is Bill Peters used a racial slur against a player in the context of his music and then doubled down after. Bill Peters shouldn't be an NHL coach as a result of his behavior.

There's no both sides to the story, in what universe can a white coach use the N word in conversation with a black player?

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by kukkudo

Dude you've exposed yourself, keep it moving.

Exposed as what?

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

We're now talking about how one side's perspective of a multi-week period that stemmed from an incident is now official evidence that a player's career was changed forever.

Not trying to diminish this as it's clearly important, but that's clearly not what everyone is focused on and concerned about. You're missing the point as per usual.

There are now multiple accounts of incredibly inappropriate and abusive behavior towards players. Pretty much the definition of a toxic work environment. Peters cannot continue in his position knowing all of this. It would be irresponsible to let him do so. It's just a matter of time before another incident (not necessarily racist incident) happens.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Why can't people can't wait for both sides of a story to come out before making judgements?

Because when multiple people confirm what happened Peters' side is irrelevant.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

We're now talking about how one side's perspective of a multi-week period that stemmed from an incident is now official evidence that a player's career was changed forever.

Dude, no one said it was "official evidence" (not to mention you seem to confuse evidence with proof). I said he could be using a lot of rationalization. But it's also a pretty reasonable assumption that a demotion affected his career.

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Why can't people can't wait for both sides of a story to come out before making judgements?

What? You mean Bill's side of the story?

It's moot. It's not needed. Enough facts have been confirmed by multiple sources at this point. I expect the next time you're hearing from Bill is when he's delivering a prepared statement for after he's let go.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

We got the only story we needed, corroboration for Aliu's version of events from other players indicate what Peters said and the context for how he said it.

We don't need anything else, and anything that Aliu did afterwards is irrelevant. The tone was set by Peters for their relationship going forward.

I'm actually seeing a lot of people saying early on "let's wait til we get the facts, and then determine what to do". When those facts came in, they weighed heavily on the side of "That's not okay, that's never okay. He needs to go. He cannot continue after confirmation of this incident."

That seems pretty rational to me actually. How are you still defending Peters after all this?

I'm not defending Peters, I'm defending patience for all the facts to come out first beyond some tweets by a player and some hearsay presented by a sporting news website.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Why can't people can't wait for both sides of a story to come out before making judgements?

What sort of judgment? The evidence to come out against Peters has been so far extremely damning. Certainly enough so to conclude that he has an established pattern of behaviour that most of us find despicable.

I don't see how any other side of this will change my mind. There sure isn't anything that could possibly sancition his actions.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

I think we need more information to make that conclusion. Did Tre know about this at any point? If no, then no. If yes, then yes.

People vouch for others all the time. Yes some personal credibility is put on the line, but you only know what you know. If everyone he talked to clammed up due to "hockey culture", then how is this on Tre?

What matters is what he does when he actually knows information. On that he was forthright and honest last night. He is doing the right thing in taking it serious and not waving it off due to risk to himself.

I am willing to put money on him firing Bill at this point no question if this is proved to be detrimental to the organization.

That said, Flames need to hire Tre a real adviser not name Connie, as he has shown himself very weak in this area.

I get some don't like Bill and Glenn, but to expect anyone to be fired over something they didn't know at all is so over the top it is ridiculous.

Some need to understand the optics to "100 other coaches" out there that are watching this for a fair shake if/when they are called for an interview.

Im not really saying reliving should be fired over something he didn't know, something he did, or even fired at all.

I just think that when an employee brings this amount of negative attention to your brand or organization, that the person put in place to make that hire is going to attract a warranted and reasonable amount of heat.

This is an extremely uncommon situation. It's not just a 'firing the coach' situation that happens 15 times a year in the NHL. This is a public relations nightmare.

The thing of it is, Treliving and Peters worked together in a professional capacity, that's the basis of the relationship according to treliving. They found agreeable common ground. Philosophically, interpersonally, Treliving felt a connection with Peters which resulted in the hire.

It's so common that there's a cliche for it. A GM usually only gets to hire 2 or 3 coaches.

With this latest hire proving to be such a spectacular and public failure, remember that Treliving had to stand up for this coach just a week to ten days ago, the organization needs to be asking themselves here if Treliving the one who should be making decisions on behalf of the on-ice product going forward.

Is one of the ways out this, for both their internal and external reputations, to move on without treliving as well. To 'transition' him into 'taking a step back' for the organization.

Does removing Treliving AND Peters have a better reputational and product/consumer outcome than keeping Treliving in place?

I think it might. Especially with Maloney waiting in the wings able to pick up the slack without skipping a beat.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

I'm not defending Peters, I'm defending patience for all the facts to come out first beyond some tweets by a player and some hearsay presented by a sporting news website.

What fact would Peters' provide that makes it ok to you? It's no longer hearsay, other players have confirmed his behaviour.

[jiginla12]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

I'm not defending Peters, I'm defending patience for all the facts to come out first beyond some tweets by a player and some hearsay presented by a sporting news website.

Corroboration is evidence. It turns from he said to they said. Do you not understand this concept?

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

I'm not defending Peters, I'm defending patience for all the facts to come out first beyond some tweets by a player and some hearsay presented by a sporting news website.

Hearsay lol, now you're just trolling.

[burn_this_city]

It isn't hearsay when there are witnesses to corroborate the story.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by nik-

What fact would Peters' provide that makes it ok to you? It's no longer hearsay, other players have confirmed his behaviour.

It wasn't even hearsay from the get go. Akim Aliu is an eyewitness. That's the opposite of hearsay.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

I'm not defending Peters, I'm defending patience for all the facts to come out first beyond some tweets by a player and some hearsay presented by a sporting news website.

Hearsay would be if Aliu told his teammates what was said and then they said that was what happened, purely on Aliu's word.

What happened here were fellow teammates confirming that they WITNESSED the events, one of them even approaching Peters after to discuss the incident.

We have enough facts at this point. Besides which, Peters hasn't said anything to try and deny these accusations yet. Perhaps he cannot because it's absolutely true, and perhaps he is avoiding the media until things calm down. Either way, it doesn't matter when you have multiple people saying the same version of events. This is not a he said/he said situation anymore.