[News] Brent Seabrook added to Flames Player Development staff

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

You are still basing your judgment of Seabrook on the assumption that he knew about the abuse and did nothing. Please substantiate these assumptions. Of the players questioned by the independent inquiry, only two stated that they knew about the abuse, and neither of them could or would name anyone else who knew, or describe any conversations with teammates regarding this. We also don't know whether, having theoretically learned about the abuse, Seabrook approached a coach or someone in management about it, and may have been told that the issue was currently under investigation.

However, I do trust that Conroy would have done his due diligence regarding this. Protecting the team's assets and building a positive, supportive culture in the organization are his highest priorities, and if Seabrook was of questionable character, both of these priorities would be at risk.

I find these calls to substantiate claims interesting, because they precede even less substantiated claims.

What do we know? We know that everyone in the locker room knew by the time homophobic slurs were being thrown around publicly during scrimmages and in the locker room. We know who did come forward, which didn’t include Seabrook.

Nobody in the course of the investigation mentioned Seabrook coming forward, so why would we believe that? And why would we treat it or the idea that he didn’t know as any more likely or equally as likely than the fact that he didn’t know and did nothing, which has been mentioned?

Like I’m not sure what people think “everybody” means. But if more than one person says “everybody” knew, that implicates “everybody” including Seabrook. Just because he wasn’t named specifically doesn’t exonerate him.

At this point, the only evidence available points to the fact that he knew about the situation, knew about the locker room abuse that followed, and did nothing. Unless you or anyone else has evidence that points to the contrary. Any at all?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

OK, I want to call this particular bit out:



This is absolutely unhinged. Are you seriously implying that the NHL rigged the draft lottery to REWARD the Blackhawks for what happened to Kyle Beach over a decade before?

I don’t think a single normal person would take that statement that way.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I find these calls to substantiate claims interesting, because they precede even less substantiated claims.

What do we know? We know that everyone in the locker room knew by the time homophobic slurs were being thrown around publicly during scrimmages and in the locker room. We know who did come forward, which didn’t include Seabrook.

Nobody in the course of the investigation mentioned Seabrook coming forward, so why would we believe that? And why would we treat it or the idea that he didn’t know as any more likely or equally as likely than the fact that he didn’t know and did nothing, which has been mentioned?

Like I’m not sure what people think “everybody” means. But if more than one person says “everybody” knew, that implicates “everybody” including Seabrook. Just because he wasn’t named specifically doesn’t exonerate him.

At this point, the only evidence available points to the fact that he knew about the situation, knew about the locker room abuse that followed, and did nothing. Unless you or anyone else has evidence that points to the contrary. Any at all?

The term "everyone" smacks of overgeneralization, particularly in the context of an independent investigation that specifically stated in its report that such a claim could not be substantiated. Furthermore, the claim that "everyone" knew was in direct contradiction to the testimony of the vast majority of the players interviewed.

And no, I'm not claiming that Seabrook knew about and reported the abuse. But if we want to vilify him for knowing about the abuse and for not reporting it, then we need to substantiate both of these claims. Otherwise, it's just assumed guilt without any evidence to corroborate it.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

The term "everyone" smacks of overgeneralization, particularly in the context of an independent investigation that specifically stated in its report that such a claim could not be substantiated. Furthermore, the claim that "everyone" knew was in direct contradiction to the testimony of the vast majority of the players interviewed.

And no, I'm not claiming that Seabrook knew about and reported the abuse. But if we want to vilify him for knowing about the abuse and for not reporting it, then we need to substantiate both of these claims. Otherwise, it's just assumed guilt without any evidence to corroborate it.

Well, no, 6 players of 14 interviewed claimed they didn’t know in 2010. Another 6 claimed they didn’t know until after the playoffs. This means that 8/14 potentially knew when the slurs were being made.

It’s also important to note that no player admitted to making or hearing slurs against Beach, despite Beach claiming as much. So you have to make a difficult choice. Do you believe Beach? Or do you believe other players and think he’s a liar?

[PepsiFree]

Really, we should be celebrating players like Sopel and Boynton. Instead we’re defending people who, at best, did nothing.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Well, no, 6 players of 14 interviewed claimed they didn’t know in 2010. Another 6 claimed they didn’t know until after the playoffs. This means that 8/14 potentially knew when the slurs were being made.

It’s also important to note that no player admitted to making or hearing slurs against Beach, despite Beach claiming as much. So you have to make a difficult choice. Do you believe Beach? Or do you believe other players and think he’s a liar?

I would never call a victim a liar. I am certain that he is telling the truth as he remembers it. It is, however, almost certain that Beach's memory of the events is substantially altered from what happened at the time. Almost every single study on the effects of time on memory has shown this. Some studies have shown that the more positive or negative the event, the more altered our memory is of it. Of note, Beach never played for the Black Hawks after 2010 playoffs, so it is unclear to me whether Beach had any contact with Seabrook after the 2010 NHL playoffs, since he played and practiced almost exclusively with Rockford Icehog players rather than the Black Hawks. So I'm not sure what Beach's allegations of subsequent homophobic remarks by teammates would have to do with Seabrook, who would not have been playing on the same team as him.

You are correct that six players stated that they learned about the abuse some time between when Aldrich was terminated and when they spoke to the inquiry. And they may have suspected that Aldrich was terminated due to the allegations of abuse. We do not know exactly when any of those six became aware of the allegations of abuse, or how much information they had about it. Perhaps they did not speak up because the only information they had about it was hearsay. Perhaps they could not confirm the veracity of the allegations. Perhaps they spoke up to team officials and were told that an investigation was already underway. Unfortunately, we have no way to know.

Should Sopel and Boynton be commended for speaking up? Absolutely. Should those in management who conspired to cover the abuse up face significant consequences for their action and/or inaction? Absolutely. Should be question and demand changes to the hockey culture that allowed this to take place? Absolutely. But that does not mean that we should paint other individuals whose involvement in the situation is completely unknown with the same brush as those who have clearly been shown to be involved in the cover-up?

[Ped]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

Of note, Beach never played for the Black Hawks after 2010 playoffs, so it is unclear to me whether Beach had any contact with Seabrook after the 2010 NHL playoffs, since he played and practiced almost exclusively with Rockford Icehog players rather than the Black Hawks.

Of note, Beach never actually played an NHL game with anyone, playoffs or not.


But he did spend 4 more seasons with the Hawks organizations, so it's probably safe to assume without going back, that he attended training camp and thus had lots of exposure to other Blackhawks players.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by Ped

Of note, Beach never actually played an NHL game with anyone, playoffs or not.


But he did spend 4 more seasons with the Hawks organizations, so it's probably safe to assume without going back, that he attended training camp and thus had lots of exposure to other Blackhawks players.

If Beach attended any subsequent Black Hawks training camps, it is not safe to assume that Seabrook witnessed him being the object of homophobic remarks. For the most part, career minor league players have little interaction with veterans at such camps. My issue with this whole discussion is that too many people are making arguments on the premise that "safe" assumptions are equal to facts. I think it's likely that Conroy has done his due diligence on this matter. That is, of course, also an assumption, but one that is consistent with Conroy's personality and previous actions and with his likely motivation to protect his organization's assets, its reputation, and its culture. He literally has nothing to gain from hiring someone who could put any of those things at risk, and everything to lose.

[Reggie Dunlop]

CSEC did provide a safe and supportive environment for former Hitmen player Luke Prokop to come out as gay, and enacted internal HR protocols to follow.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

If Beach attended any subsequent Black Hawks training camps, it is not safe to assume that Seabrook witnessed him being the object of homophobic remarks. For the most part, career minor league players have little interaction with veterans at such camps. My issue with this whole discussion is that too many people are making arguments on the premise that "safe" assumptions are equal to facts. I think it's likely that Conroy has done his due diligence on this matter. That is, of course, also an assumption, but one that is consistent with Conroy's personality and previous actions and with his likely motivation to protect his organization's assets, its reputation, and its culture. He literally has nothing to gain from hiring someone who could put any of those things at risk, and everything to lose.

Yeah, this is basically it. People have a bit of a skewed idea of what goes on in a dressing room like that. Some guys are in and out fast, some guys hang out, some guys have beefs, etc. Seabrook wasn't an A in the cup year. They gave him an A the next year (likely after training camp because that's when it happens). And either way he was 24 years old - think of all the 24 year olds you know and how equipped they are to "leading" on that kind of a matter. It's pretty tough to judge him based on the actual reporting etc.

[Macindoc]

I think we can all agree that:

1. Sexual assault is a vile crime.
2. Victims of sexual assault are not to blame for being assaulted.
3. Sexual assault can occur even if "consent" was provided, if that consent involved a person who had significant power over the person who was assaulted, or was in a position of trust.
4. Homophobia is also vile and should always be challenged.
5. If a person becomes aware of a sexual assault, they are morally obligated to promptly report that assault to the proper authorities.

We may not all agree on who knew what and when in this case, and that is largely because the evidence is sparse and contradictory. Some of us assume guilt. Some might assume innocence. Some of us, myself included, believe in the attitude that led the Flames organization to put in place protocols to create a supportive environment for non-heterosexual players would not be consistent with them compromising on the hiring of an individual that they believed to be homophobic or tolerant of sexual abuse.

[Infinit47]

The Flames knew Seabrook was on that team and I am disappointed they did not deal with this issue when he was hired. A simple, I never knew (if that's true) or an acknowledgment and committment to do better.

It doesn't seem like people are advocating for his banishment from the league, but some sort of comment would have been a way to deal with the blowback they must have known was coming.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Comment from the Flames? Or Seabrook?

Genuinely wondering what would your expect them to say?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

Of note, Beach never played for the Black Hawks after 2010 playoffs, so it is unclear to me whether Beach had any contact with Seabrook after the 2010 NHL playoffs, since he played and practiced almost exclusively with Rockford Icehog players rather than the Black Hawks. So I'm not sure what Beach's allegations of subsequent homophobic remarks by teammates would have to do with Seabrook, who would not have been playing on the same team as him.

Beach and Seabrook were both at training camp when the derogatory remarks were being made in the open. They also played at least one preseason game together (against Pittsburgh), so they did in fact have contact and played on the same team.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Royle9

This thread is wild.
I'll leave it at that.

A good old fashioned CP cat fight.

[Ped]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Beach and Seabrook were both at training camp when the derogatory remarks were being made in the open. They also played at least one preseason game together (against Pittsburgh), so they did in fact have contact and played on the same team.

Now now. It is not at all reasonable to assume that just because they went to training camp, that they had interaction. After all, rookies and veterans have a wall between them and have absolutely nothing to do with it.


Never mind that Kyle Beach was on the same scrimmage team as Patrick Kane in 2013 I think, and got into a fight with Andrew Shaw.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Beach and Seabrook were both at training camp when the derogatory remarks were being made in the open. They also played at least one preseason game together (against Pittsburgh), so they did in fact have contact and played on the same team.

When the team was divided into groups for training camp before Beach was sent down, was he in the same group as Seabrook? During a preseason game, would players actually tease and insult a teammate in front of a rival team? Remember, Beach said that these comments were made openly in front of the public and the press. Why did the press not pick up on them at the time? Were the press associated with both the Black Hawks and the Penguins also in cahoots with Black Hawks management in the cover up? Does the fact that they were on several occasions in the same place at the same time mean that Seabrook was aware of everything that was being said about Beach and why?

Maybe Seabrook was aware of the derogatory comments. Maybe he made some of them. Maybe he was aware of the abuse before the investigation. Maybe he reported it to a coach or member of team management. And maybe none of those possibilities are true. Based on the available facts, I don't know, do you? But it would seem unlike Conroy to not do his due diligence on this matter, and it would be even more unlike him to say, "OK, Seabrook previously showed poor character, but I don't care, because he's just going to play a key role in the formation of our young players, and it doesn't matter if he doesn't have what it takes to protect our organization's best assets from harm". It would be wise of the Flames to address this issue, with the amount of (understandable) consternation it is causing. I mean, it's not as if Seabrook has anything special to offer the organization if doesn't have the skills and temperament to teach and nurture good character in the young players he was hired to work with, so why bother hiring him if that's the case?

[Ped]

Lot of maybes there. And you're right that there's a lot that's unknown. So given the optics and the controversy over other hirings such as Bowman or Quenneville, why not just address it and say it?


Seems to me that would answer all questions.

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by Ped

Lot of maybes there. And you're right that there's a lot that's unknown. So given the optics and the controversy over other hirings such as Bowman or Quenneville, why not just address it and say it?


Seems to me that would answer all questions.

But what does he need to answer since the situation was already addressed by the NHL? You know Bowman is GM for the Oilers did he come out with a statement after he was hired and why are we not talking about him? He actually admitted that he didn't do enough and then he should have handled it better but now he's back working in the NHL. He also said he had an opportunity to learn from it. We don't make progress by rehashing something that was already dealt with, it was reported the NHL stepped in investigated and addressed it.