[News] Stan Bowman resigns after 2010 sexual abuse investigation

[dino7c]

JQ pretending he never heard of the guy is pretty telling

[FlamesAddiction]

The fact Chicago seems to have conveniently "lost" much of Aldrich's file makes it difficult to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. The unsigned reviews and letter may as well be signed and I am going to assume that the signed versions are part of that lost file. Maybe I am wrong, but the Hawks and everyone associated with them from that incident, deserve the scrutiny. It seems pretty obvious that there was a conspiracy to cover things up or reduce the impact on the Chicago organization.

[Monahammer]

I dont even understand some of the #### i am reading in here. "unsigned performance review" lol so if you had a staff member that was sexually assaulting employees you would be ok with them receiving future performance reviews from you that didn't include that note as the headline?

The claims he didn't know about it are absolute horse####. People were making jokes about this in the club 4 years later. He knew about it.

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by Muffins

"I know people there" and "unfortunate incident"

Swing and a miss Dave......yikes.

For Tippett calling it an "unfortunate incident" just show what kind of character he is. I'm wondering, if he was the coach of the Blackhawks at the time instead of Q, he would've done the same as Q. Yikes indeed!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by dino7c

JQ pretending he never heard of the guy is pretty telling

That did not happen.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by midniteowl

For Tippett calling it an "unfortunate incident" just show what kind of character he is. I'm wondering, if he was the coach of the Blackhawks at the time instead of Q, he would've done the same as Q. Yikes indeed!

Seems like this is all part of "hockey culture", which is in big trouble now.

Although we said that before. Things should have changed significantly for the better following Graham James but they did not it seems.

And if Coach Q had the power to fire the guy on his own, and didn't, that might be the end of Coach Q.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

That did not happen.

“I first learned of these allegations through the media earlier this summer,” Quenneville
Its already been proven to be a lie

and he has since doubled down

I find it odd that you of all people are defending this guy

You are normally PC principal but something this serious? Are you letting your love of this coach cloud your judgement or something? I honestly don't get it.

Way worse than Bill Peters who deserved to be fired too IMO

[dino7c]

From Jeff Marek

"If your desire to win the Stanley Cup is more important than protecting a young person trying to find a place in your organization then you should not be employed in this league."

Well said

[Knightslayer]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

That did not happen.

Well he never claimed to not know the guy but he definitely denied knowing of the allegations until it was brought up in the media.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Yeah he did over the summer...I find it odd that you of all people are defending this guy

You are normally PC principal but something this serious? Are you letting your love of this coach cloud your judgement or something? I honestly don't get it.

Way worse than Bill Peters who deserved to be fired too IMO

No, he didn't. He said he hadn't heard of the allegations of assault. They worked together for two years.

How is presenting the truth a defence?

Save the personal ####.

[SuperMatt18]

Here is the thing.

If players on the Flyers have said they had heard of rumors of the situation during that cup finals, if other Blackhawks players were aware of the allegations (IIRC as many as 12 players interviewed knew according to the report), and if Bowman even said he had conversations with JQ about the situation, then there is no way JQ didn't have any type of knowledge of the allegations of assault.

He knew about it, lied in the summer, and doubled down on the lie again now.

[Saqe]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I dont even understand some of the #### i am reading in here. "unsigned performance review" lol so if you had a staff member that was sexually assaulting employees you would be ok with them receiving future performance reviews from you that didn't include that note as the headline?

The claims he didn't know about it are absolute horse####. People were making jokes about this in the club 4 years later. He knew about it.

It's about proof. You can speculate and make assumptions but that doesn't get a person convicted. People joke about rumors all the time and say stupid things, this is not evidence. There is also a big difference between Q knowing there was "a problem" vs. knowing there was a rapist in house.



All we know for sure is Q arrived at the meeting half way through, doesn't himself recall Aldrich's name being mentioned or any specifics given to him about the case. Chevy recalls Alrich being mentioned but doesn't recall if Q was at the meeting at that point. And then there are other conflicting reports of what was said in the meeting.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by neo45

I think “mailing in the performance reviews” of his staff when one just assaulted his players is kind of WHY the heat is on Q right now

I know Q looks like he just walked off the set of Law & Order, but I think it's unlikely the head coach would be the one to lead that kind of investigation.

June 9 - won the cup
June 14 - Director HR first full day back in the office since the Cup; informed of incident by McDonagh
June 16 - Aldrich 'resignation' meeting
June 29 - supposed evaluation document date

What was he supposed to write under the "Areas for Improvement" heading at that point?


To me, Q is guilty of:
1. taking a bad stance on May 23 when informed about concerns (in an uncertain level of detail). Actively arguing against taking any immediate action at worst; arguing for limited/slow/quiet action at best.
2. trusting that the issue had been handled appropriately and perhaps contributing/complying/participating with an organization that has now shown itself to be incredibly toxic
3. Lying/obfuscating to the media, etc, perhaps on the advice of counsel/PR

He failed to step up and do the 'right' thing, but I'm not sure how much active wrongdoing I see...

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by dino7c

From Jeff Marek

"If your desire to win the Stanley Cup is more important than protecting a young person trying to find a place in your organization then you should not be employed in this league."

Well said

That's pretty unrealistic though as these people have put in hours over hours over years and/or decades to win a cup and if you think these people are going to drop that for something like this, then you just don't live in reality. I think everyone in management involved in this deserved to lose their job for the way they handled things but Quenneville was the head coach of the team and he's employed for one reason and that's to win the cup. It's the fault of management to even involve him IMO as they are paid to manage the team and it's employees. Involving the head coach is simply another level of ineptitude shown by them. This isn't the same as Babcock or Peters abusing players. Quenneville had nothing to do with the assaults nor was it his job to discipline or take action on any employees involved. I understand it's typical these days for people to want blood but you have to be a little realistic with how many people should face the guillotine. I don't agree that he should have to resign at all but Tim Cheveldayoff has some explaining to do as an assistant GM.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

That's pretty unrealistic though as these people have put in hours over hours over years and/or decades to win a cup and if you think these people are going to drop that for something like this, then you just don't live in reality. I think everyone in management involved in this deserved to lose their job for the way they handled things but Quenneville was the head coach of the team and he's employed for one reason and that's to win the cup.

This is BS and it's this mindset that's the entire problem here. Defending and standing up for those who are being abused needs to be more important than the results.

These people should drop the pursuit of the cup and think of the person for a second if somebody just assaulted somebody.

He's the head coach, and the assistant coaches technically report to him as well.

JQ has just as much power in this situation as the GM and AGM and if he doesn't want to have an assistant coach on his staff anymore then he could have pushed for that.

He could have easily said "This guy can't be part of my staff anymore".

[Saqe]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

He failed to step up and do the 'right' thing, but I'm not sure how much active wrongdoing I see...

Yeah that's pretty much how I see it, the difference between intentionally doing something wrong vs. failing to do something.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Unsigned performance evaluations...not signed reference letter as has been oft stated.

The rest of the paragraph you quoted is also relevant:


In other words...we won the friggin' Stanley Cup...we can mail-in the performance reviews this year.

Perf review dated June 29. Aldrich already had his 'resignation' meeting with HR and outside counsel on June 16. Did Q bother following up (this might have been a good reminder)? Or were these anything more than a formality that he didn't even bother to sign? Was he instructed to just continue business as usual..."the Aldrich situation has been dealt with".

Or did Q order someone to deal with personnel files...or was it someone else in the org...





Let's not forget who the real monster is here:


Seems like he may have really targetted the fringe players whom he'd actually have some power over.

First, you’ll have to find my post where I said he signed a recommendation.

Unsigned means nothing here - it’s a memo. You don’t sign memos, typically. But they are from you nonetheless. The “mailed in” performance reviews were apparently being done the year before too. Q wasn’t exactly diligent on the job. But more to the point - after he heard about “issues” and after the guy was pushed out (and it strains credulity behind the breaking point that he didn’t know why his own coach was terminated) he issued the same boilerplate evaluation.

Again, you seem to be really reaching to defend this guy. He was directly in charge of him, his own assistants either told him and did nothing, or couldn’t be bothered to tell him earlier - either one is bad. Let’s put it this way - I have an assistant who works directly for me. If she is reported to HR, I’m following up to see what happened, and if I disagree with it, I’m taking steps.

Everyone in that meeting was complicit to some degree or other.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Saqe

Yeah that's pretty much how I see it, the difference between intentionally doing something wrong vs. failing to do something.

Well, and misleading everyone about his level of knowledge.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

This is BS and it's this mindset that's the entire problem here. Defending and standing up for those who are being abused needs to be more important than the results.

These people should drop the pursuit of the cup and think of the person for a second if somebody just assaulted somebody.

He's the head coach, and the assistant coaches technically report to him as well.

JQ has just as much power in this situation as the GM and AGM and if he doesn't want to have an assistant coach on his staff anymore then he could have pushed for that.

He could have easily said "This guy can't be part of my staff anymore".

Agree for sure but ten years in this area is like 50 - that's how far the pendulum has swung now.

I have been watching repeats of Entourage on HBO from 10 years ago and its amazing the amount of sexual, workplace and other harassment that's depicted, all of which was perfectly acceptable then.

A series like that would not get the green light today (unless its specific purpose was to portray what the times were like then).

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No, he didn't. He said he hadn't heard of the allegations of assault. They worked together for two years.

How is presenting the truth a defence?

Save the personal ####.

He didn’t say “allegations of assault”. He said “these allegations”. The statement of claim includes stuff he must have known about.

At the very highest he was being coy with his level of knowledge. Why would he not say “I knew of an accusation of harassment, which I felt was was being dealt with through HR, but I never heard of assault allegations”.