[News] Stan Bowman resigns after 2010 sexual abuse investigation

[MrMike]

https://twitter.com/rwesthead/status...712512513?s=20


Edit : already a separate thread.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

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”.

The allegations were allegations of assault, what do you think were alleged over the summer? Why was he being coy? Legally, I think we know exactly why.

And why nitpick on that but ignore the blatantly false "he said he hadn't heard of the guy"?

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

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.

Yes. And right there is the problem. One of HIS coaches. With one of HIS players.

The lack of action is the problem. He should have been all over the situation. But the games were more important to him.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The allegations were allegations of assault, what do you think were alleged over the summer? Why was he being coy? Legally, I think we know exactly why.

And why nitpick on that but ignore the blatantly false "he said he hadn't heard of the guy"?

Because I was never talking about that. And the allegations over the summer were contained in a statement of claim. Which included assault and sexual harassment and coverup.

Frankly, how did he not know about everything? His skills coach knew and asked for a police report. His assistant coaches knew. At least some players knew. HR knew. Was he completely disengaged?

Again, why would he not at least say he knew there were issues and that’s why he was forced out, but he didn’t know the level? He misled the press. “Legally” he was not obliged to say anything. So he should have said either the full truth or nothing at all. Instead, he deflected attention away from himself.

[dino7c]

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 ####.

personal? I am just shocked you are defending this guy...doesn't seem to fit your past posting history

[dino7c]

There is something between throwing the towel in on winning the cup and holding someone accountable for SEXUAL ABUSE

I'm sure they could have pulled it off without their rapist video coach

Bill Peter's never broke the law but his career is over so save the legal protecting his own ass garbage. JQ does not deserve to be one of the 32 NHL head coaches on earth, a much higher standard is needed to be in this privileged position.

If he was still coaching the Hawks he would have been gone yesterday...not sure why he would get a pass because he is doing well on another team

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Because I was never talking about that. And the allegations over the summer were contained in a statement of claim. Which included assault and sexual harassment and coverup.

Frankly, how did he not know about everything? His skills coach knew and asked for a police report. His assistant coaches knew. At least some players knew. HR knew. Was he completely disengaged?

Again, why would he not at least say he knew there were issues and that’s why he was forced out, but he didn’t know the level? He misled the press. “Legally” he was not obliged to say anything. So he should have said either the full truth or nothing at all. Instead, he deflected attention away from himself.

We've already chatted about this. I don't know how much more effort I'm willing to give to this. I was correcting someone, no need to steer the convo back onto a topic we've already discussed. Agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by dino7c

personal? I am just shocked you are defending this guy...doesn't seem to fit your past posting history

Fair enough, felt personal. I'm not trying to defend him, I'm trying to provide perspective and the context in the report. I'm fine with him being fired. I believe he needs to be punished. I don't believe he's blameless or that he did nothing wrong.

Lot of talk around here over the past year and some about how facts matter. But there are lots of things being said here that aren't factual, even bringing up guys who aren't mentioned in the report (not you doing it, that I've seen). That's why I responded to "he said he hadn't heard of the guy," which maybe you meant he said he didn't know of the allegations.

We're good.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

We've already chatted about this. I don't know how much more effort I'm willing to give to this. I was correcting someone, no need to steer the convo back onto a topic we've already discussed. Agree to disagree.



Fair enough, felt personal. I'm not trying to defend him, I'm trying to provide perspective and the context in the report. I'm fine with him being fired. I believe he needs to be punished. I don't believe he's blameless or that he did nothing wrong.

Lot of talk around here over the past year and some about how facts matter. But there are lots of things being said here that aren't factual, even bringing up guys who aren't mentioned in the report (not you doing it, that I've seen). That's why I responded to "he said he hadn't heard of the guy," which maybe you meant he said he didn't know of the allegations.

We're good.

I get that but this isn't a court of law...it happened and he obviously knew about it....he can't get off on a technicality here. NHL is a brand as are the Panthers, they can't just allow someone who swept this under the rug to continue being one of the 32 NHL head coaches on earth.

Like I said Peters never broke the law but he will never coach in the league again. When you are in this position you are held to a higher standard...or should be anyway.


I apologize if I got to personal this subject really hits a nerve for me and I can't believe its still going on. I fear it will continue to without serious repercussions

[VladtheImpaler]

Having read the report, and thinking about it as a manager in terms what I would do, and in terms of large organizations... There is a meeting in May, where it is unclear exactly what is raised - allegations of sexual assault or allegations of sexual "relations" - I am not sure it is established exactly what the issue raised at that meeting was. The big boss present (McDonagh) basically says "we are in a unique situation, so I will take care of this, and you hockey guys focus on hockey". If you are Coach Q, what else are you supposed to do? For myself, if I am THE boss, I would tell the people involved to take a leave and "investigate" and then decide accordingly. But Q is not the boss, and the actual boss tells him that "he's got it - just do your job". I am not sure Q should have done any more at that point, as he is not the decision maker. It's like you are a group manager in large company, there is a "sexual incident" and the VP, Western Canada, says "I will take care of it" - are you supposed to do anything else? I think the imperative for Q to do "something" depends on exactly how detailed of a scenario was presented at that May 23 meeting, and I don't think that is clear and seems like assault was not suggested...
Now, what happens after in terms of Q's evaluations... again, if he doesn't know any more than the guy resigned, why not give him a positive review? Maybe Q thought he was being "progressive" by not punishing Aldrich for being gay. Who knows?
It is very clear that McDonagh, as the ultimate decision maker, bears responsibility - it was incumbent upon him to investigate properly and to act appropriately, and he clearly did not do that. Everyone else down the food chain... it is really unclear exactly what they knew beyond "there was a sexual thing between the video coach and a player", so what were they supposed to do? Definitely, Chicago Blackhawks, the organization, bears heavy responsibility, as does McDonagh, the individual, as the boss and the one who took charge of the situation. HR person too because, really, that's what HR is for, isn't it? Everyone else, I am frankly unclear about what they knew, how curious they should have been and what they should have done. It is not a Nurenburg situation where the boss has ordered you to do something illegal/unconscionable and you have a duty to refuse. If the boss tells you that he will take care of it and does in fact "take care of it", is it incumbent on Q to stick his nose in further? If all I know it's a "sex thing" between my assistant and another employee and my boss "takes care of it", why would I stick my nose into a private and uncomfortable mattter? UNLESS I SPECIFICALLY KNOW THAT SEXUAL ASSAULT IS ALLEGED.
As far as being evasive now - lawsuit...

[dino7c]

JQ doesn’t even have the moral center to sit out the regular season game tonight until he chats with Gary and at least fake a moral compass.

Same night the victim goes on national tv

[Vinny01]

Definitely crazy to see arguably the most successful franchise of the the 2010’s along with the Pens.

Years later first the Peters scandal and now this from the same organization in a 2 year period.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Having read the report, and thinking about it as a manager in terms what I would do, and in terms of large organizations... There is a meeting in May, where it is unclear exactly what is raised - allegations of sexual assault or allegations of sexual "relations" - I am not sure it is established exactly what the issue raised at that meeting was. The big boss present (McDonagh) basically says "we are in a unique situation, so I will take care of this, and you hockey guys focus on hockey". If you are Coach Q, what else are you supposed to do? For myself, if I am THE boss, I would tell the people involved to take a leave and "investigate" and then decide accordingly. But Q is not the boss, and the actual boss tells him that "he's got it - just do your job". I am not sure Q should have done any more at that point, as he is not the decision maker. It's like you are a group manager in large company, there is a "sexual incident" and the VP, Western Canada, says "I will take care of it" - are you supposed to do anything else? I think the imperative for Q to do "something" depends on exactly how detailed of a scenario was presented at that May 23 meeting, and I don't think that is clear and seems like assault was not suggested...
Now, what happens after in terms of Q's evaluations... again, if he doesn't know any more than the guy resigned, why not give him a positive review? Maybe Q thought he was being "progressive" by not punishing Aldrich for being gay. Who knows?
It is very clear that McDonagh, as the ultimate decision maker, bears responsibility - it was incumbent upon him to investigate properly and to act appropriately, and he clearly did not do that. Everyone else down the food chain... it is really unclear exactly what they knew beyond "there was a sexual thing between the video coach and a player", so what were they supposed to do? Definitely, Chicago Blackhawks, the organization, bears heavy responsibility, as does McDonagh, the individual, as the boss and the one who took charge of the situation. HR person too because, really, that's what HR is for, isn't it? Everyone else, I am frankly unclear about what they knew, how curious they should have been and what they should have done. It is not a Nurenburg situation where the boss has ordered you to do something illegal/unconscionable and you have a duty to refuse. If the boss tells you that he will take care of it and does in fact "take care of it", is it incumbent on Q to stick his nose in further? If all I know it's a "sex thing" between my assistant and another employee and my boss "takes care of it", why would I stick my nose into a private and uncomfortable mattter? UNLESS I SPECIFICALLY KNOW THAT SEXUAL ASSAULT IS ALLEGED.
As far as being evasive now - lawsuit...

Head coaches, especially ones with the clout of Quenneville, for all intents and purposes hire and fire their assistants. And you’re telling me that he didn’t want to know exactly what happened with an employee under his direct supervision? This is Sgt. Schultz level supervision.

HR was not, in fact, at the May meeting to advise them. Q was - and what he wanted and his attitude are made pretty clear from the report. He knew it was a dire situation (it was a highly unusual meeting) and he was eager to shove it aside because of the cup run, according to the report.

As for being evasive - in the summer he could have said nothing like people are always advised to do, but instead he evaded. The funny part was it sounds like he and Chevy sorted out the story but got mixed up as to when they said they first heard.

I mean, it’s telling when you have to invent a bunch of different excuses for the various things he did and didn’t do, when the alternative is something far simpler.

[GioforPM]

Well, it’s clearer now:

“I’ve witnessed meetings, right after I reported it to James Gary, that were held in Joel Quenneville’s office. There’s absolutely no way that he can deny knowing it and there’s absolutely no way that Stan Bowman would make up a quote like that, to somebody who served his organization and his team so well.”

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Well, it’s clearer now:

“I’ve witnessed meetings, right after I reported it to James Gary, that were held in Joel Quenneville’s office. There’s absolutely no way that he can deny knowing it and there’s absolutely no way that Stan Bowman would make up a quote like that, to somebody who served his organization and his team so well.”

Yep, I mean it was obvious but he came right out and said it

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Yep, I mean it was obvious but he came right out and said it

I’m actually shocked that it was so front and centre. I thought maybe Quenneville knew but had put some sort of buffer in for plausible deniability.

[dino7c]

all players, assistant coaches, some media, the janitor knew,

but JQ still doubling down playing dumb

[Mr.Coffee]

Well that's the end of Quenneville.

[curves2000]

I will say this again, people are confusing where the power coaches, assistant coaches, AGM's and more may lie.

Sure a coach or a GM may have the power to fire employee's for poor performance, it literally happens every season in sports.

This notion that some AGM who's responsibility is to be a cap specialist or that Coach Q will just be able to snap his fingers and get rid of some guy for reasons that are not performance related is absurd. Situation like this may entail criminal chargers and or could potentially warrant lawsuits from different parties and so a lot of things need to be dealt with properly.

I am not sticking up for the Hawks, Coach Q or anybody else, this is a disaster across the board and sickening. I have no doubt that decisions were made in the best interest of the playoffs or the cup but people are confusing what could happen, what they would do, and what should have happened.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by curves2000

I will say this again, people are confusing where the power coaches, assistant coaches, AGM's and more may lie.

Sure a coach or a GM may have the power to fire employee's for poor performance, it literally happens every season in sports.

This notion that some AGM who's responsibility is to be a cap specialist or that Coach Q will just be able to snap his fingers and get rid of some guy for reasons that are not performance related is absurd. Situation like this may entail criminal chargers and or could potentially warrant lawsuits from different parties and so a lot of things need to be dealt with properly.

I am not sticking up for the Hawks, Coach Q or anybody else, this is a disaster across the board and sickening. I have no doubt that decisions were made in the best interest of the playoffs or the cup but people are confusing what could happen, what they would do, and what should have happened.

I assure you I’m aware of how things work legally and in large organizations. They happen fast and do not get shoved aside, at least in well run places. And if Q didn’t want the guy around, he wouldn’t be around. At least not near any other employees.

[Ped]

Originally Posted by curves2000

I will say this again, people are confusing where the power coaches, assistant coaches, AGM's and more may lie.

Sure a coach or a GM may have the power to fire employee's for poor performance, it literally happens every season in sports.

This notion that some AGM who's responsibility is to be a cap specialist or that Coach Q will just be able to snap his fingers and get rid of some guy for reasons that are not performance related is absurd. Situation like this may entail criminal chargers and or could potentially warrant lawsuits from different parties and so a lot of things need to be dealt with properly.

I am not sticking up for the Hawks, Coach Q or anybody else, this is a disaster across the board and sickening. I have no doubt that decisions were made in the best interest of the playoffs or the cup but people are confusing what could happen, what they would do, and what should have happened.

You really think Joel Quenneville can't get rid of a bubble on his roster?



Really?


Bizarre take.