Thanks for sharing Joe Thornton!

[MissTeeks]

Scarrison Booney‏@HarrisonMooney7m
Boy, @botchford sure showed that army of straw men. pic.twitter.com/xohsoDhpo0

[Lanny'sDaMan]

Hahah wow, his twitter is sure entertaining right now. Everyone is ripping him to shreds and he still refuses to admit he stepped over the line.

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Originally Posted by Lanny'sDaMan

Hahah wow, his twitter is sure entertaining right now. Everyone is ripping him to shreds and he still refuses to admit he stepped over the line.

He's not one to back down or apologize. He's an opinionated, abrasive guy and it's not an act or a show. He's like that in person.

He doesn't feel he did anything wrong, so I wouldn't expect him to back down.

In my opinion, he's probably best served to let this thing die and not engage, but that's not his style.

[Coach]

I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to find a player who has a problem with women reporters in the dressing room (for the record, I don't think Keith's comment from last year was mysoginistic. He was stating a fact that if that woman was a ref, shed be the first. And then he correctly deduced from her statement that she "can't skate" that she also likely did not play hockey.

Thornton didn't say anything racist or homophobic or anything that could really possibly offend anyone that doesn't have a stick so far up their ass that their breath smells of rich mahogany. He made a masturbation joke. An idiot printed it.

[nickk382]

Originally Posted by BlackWallStreet

His joke wasn't funny bro, you probably laugh when someone farts to, grow up kid

get some class while you're at it

I'm really concerned for your well being. I can imagine you being a kid with no friends who plays World of Warcraft right when he gets home from school to the point where he passes out in his computer chair.

[Stay Golden]

Originally Posted by Lanny'sDaMan

Hahah wow, his twitter is sure entertaining right now. Everyone is ripping him to shreds and he still refuses to admit he stepped over the line.

It would be great if all visiting teams this season refused to answer any of his questions.
Ostracize him inside the locker room, make him feel invisible.

[Commandant]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I really don't understand why he reported it. It sure as hell wasn't news. it was a joke.

Was it just done to embarrass Thornton in public? What's purpose in that? He'll be lucky if he doesn't get all reporters banned from the Shark's dressing room. Want to interview someone? Wait outside and we'll get him.

Its been done before by other teams.

The best thing about all this is that it didn't embarrass Thornton. It likely led to him being more popular amongst hockey fans.

I think most (not all, but most) fans found it hilarious.

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

Scarrison Booney‏@HarrisonMooney7m
Boy, @botchford sure showed that army of straw men. pic.twitter.com/xohsoDhpo0

Harrison Mooney is as useless as Botchford.

Complains about straw men. Uses a bunch himself. What a tool.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to find a player who has a problem with women reporters in the dressing room (for the record, I don't think Keith's comment from last year was mysoginistic. He was stating a fact that if that woman was a ref, shed be the first. And then he correctly deduced from her statement that she "can't skate" that she also likely did not play hockey.

Thornton didn't say anything racist or homophobic or anything that could really possibly offend anyone that doesn't have a stick so far up their ass that their breath smells of rich mahogany. He made a masturbation joke. An idiot printed it.

What I really like about the situation is, except for about four people, no one has any problem with what Joe said. They see it as funny and/or a way to get people to away from Hertl. The vast majority of people are talking about Botchford's thought process, or lack thereof. There aren't many people who are defending him. I also think he's too far into this to let it pass or apologize. I like it, because he keeps digging himself into a deeper hole, that he is oblivious to.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

I'm not in the media, so maybe I don't get it. But in this situation, the media, is granted access into the private locker room of teams, in order to get commentary from players and coaches a like about things that are relevant to the game.

They aren't granted access to what should be a "safe" place for the staff of these teams to act as spies for the public about anything and everything that goes on in there. Maybe I don't get it, but players should probably feel like the only thing that is fair game is stuff said in an official, I'm fully aware I'm being interviewed, moments.

Using Botchford's logic, anything he sees or hears in the dressing room is printable, if he thinks it would make a good story. Using that logic, if he happened to see a bunch of the players junk, and he though female readers would like to know who's packing what, he'd be abliged to report it. Or if he overheard someone making a very opinionated political comment to another player, does it become his duty to report what he heard? I have to assume the answer is no, because he's there to get some comments about the game, not report on who feels what about politics or who tells the best or raciest jokes, which is what he essentially did this time.

Not sure who this Mooney guy is that seems to have his back, but he called out examples of what if it was something racist or sexiest that was said. Now as much as would hope people wouldn't hear anything like that from the players, and as much as I'd like to know if any player did say that so I could properly adjust my opinion of said player, I actually would think my opinion would stay the same. Unless the stupid racist or sexiest comment was said on the record, it probably shouldn't go reported. Again, going back to why the reporters are there in the first place, to report on the game........not to dig up dirt on players. This isn't Big Brother where they have to accept cameras are on 24/7, it's pro hockey, and the reporters are allowed into the dressing to perform one professional duty, nothing else.

[19Yzerman19]

^Mooney is a Puck Daddy columnist, but I don't think he has Botchford's back at all there. He's being sarcastic, and saying that Botchford's counter argument is a straw man.

Originally Posted by squiggs96

Botchford said he's never heard a player say those things. This is false. He has written about how he has heard those lines and how he didn't think they were right. He didn't give any context of where the player was, when they said it. He flat out said he has never heard a player said that. They asked never, and he replied never. He obviously has, since he wrote about it.

This is wrong. You're deliberately altering his statement. He said he has never seen a particular situation where a player calls out a reporter while said reporter is interviewing someone else. Your "gotcha" methodology here is pointless and distracts from the real issue, which is....

Originally Posted by MattyC

Yes but is Thornton engaging the reporter for an interview, or just talking to another human being? Can these guys have conversations with reporters without it being an interview?

Clearly they can. The wrinkle here is that Lalji asks Marleau a question, and Thornton then engages Lalji on the subject matter of that question. His response wasn't just an off the cuff joke apropos of nothing, it was a statement directly going to the root of the issue, to the effect that any suggestion that Hertl had been disrespectful was ridiculous.

Take another hypothetical. Let's say a reporter asks Marleau if he thinks the Sharks need to get more shots on net during their power play. Thornton then jumps in and says, "we're getting plenty of shots on goal, what we need is to get more traffic in front of the net". The situation is essentially the same. Can he print that?

The only difference is the TONE of what Thornton said. In this case, he was joking around and cursing. The argument - and it's one Lebrun made sort of offhandedly in that TSN segment and you address later in your post - is that a reporter should be able to take a hint from the tone of Joe's comment and realize that he wasn't expecting it to be reported.

That's really the crux of this whole thing. And when you put it that way, I can see an argument that a reporter shouldn't have to self-censor based on whether he interpreted the player as being in a non-serious mood. EDIT: And I'm biased on that point because I wish they WOULDN'T so that we get to hear about more of these quotes; they're funny and make me appreciate the player more as a human being with an actual personality.

They see these guys all the time its not out of the question to think they're familiar enough to have off-the-record discussions as friends/collegues. And with something so vulgar being said, I would think Botchford would at least have the tact and professionalism to ASK Thornton if he was ok to print it.

That's certainly an argument. I'm not sure how convincing it is that the thing that makes a comment un-publishable without further confirmation from the player in question is that he swore and said some stuff that people might think was vulgar. Why is that the standard?

For me, what probably makes Botchford wrong to print this is that Thornton WAS asked to repeat his comment later and declined (at which point it was clear he was on the record), and therefore he'd made his intention clear that he DIDN'T want it published. Essentially, if you DO ask and he says no, then you can't do it. I'm not sure what the parameters are for when you should have to ask, though. That's a point on which reasonable people may differ.

[jschick88]

@TSN1050Radio @JLupul joined the @HayesTSN & ripped into Jason Botchford. Said he will NEVER give him a quote again & said other players shouldn't either

[BlackWallStreet]

Originally Posted by nickk382

I'm really concerned for your well being. I can imagine you being a kid with no friends who plays World of Warcraft right when he gets home from school to the point where he passes out in his computer chair.

Whatever makes you feel better about yourself big guy

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Has Farhan Lalji weighed in on this? Botchford's explanation makes no sense. Botchford said that Thorton interrupted another interview (presumably Lalji/Marleau) told Lalji to shut up, and then told his joke. WTF?

Botchford is digging his own grave on this one. Why anyone would grant him an interview (even Canucks) is beyond me.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by BlackWallStreet

Whatever makes you feel better about yourself big guy

You should question his sexuality

[BlackWallStreet]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

You should question his sexuality

All good, his picture isn't a fairy boy like yours

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by BlackWallStreet

All good, his picture isn't a fairy boy like yours

[The Fonz]

Gotta admit, I've always wondered what was with that avatar

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by BlackWallStreet

Whatever makes you feel better about yourself big guy

Still following the "some guy and his shlong" thread, eh?

Thought you might have moved on to the hockey threads...

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

^Mooney is a Puck Daddy columnist, but I don't think he has Botchford's back at all there. He's being sarcastic, and saying that Botchford's counter argument is a straw man.

This is wrong. You're deliberately altering his statement. He said he has never seen a particular situation where a player calls out a reporter while said reporter is interviewing someone else. Your "gotcha" methodology here is pointless and distracts from the real issue, which is....

Here is Botchford's comments, directly from his mouth, word for word.

No I've never heard in a scrum a player shout out "shut up", use a curse word, and then ask everyone in the media, "have any of you played the game?" No, I have never seen that before. .... I've never seen a situation like that

I am not altering anything. Botchford said he has never seen a situation like that before. He repeated it. I have shown that he has, in fact, commented on it. He may not have been in the room with Keith and Thomson, but he has clearly heard, maybe secondhand, that a player asked a reporter if they've played the game. This isn't disputable, as he clearly has knowledge that it has happened before, and in his hometown. He defended the reporter then, and he thinks he's doing it again here.

Botchford didn't even answer the question directly. He was asked if he's ever heard a comment like that, in all his years in a dressing room, in all his years in a Vancouver dressing room. Botchford gave a round about answer to say he's never seen this specific situation. That wasn't the question. The correct, and truthful, answer would have been, "Yes I have heard locker room banter, off colour jokes and players asking if reporters had played the game. In fact, I've written about some of them".

How is my methodology of pointing out facts pointless? Just because you don't like them, doesn't make them pointless. Just because you think something is the real issue, doesn't make it the real issue. I believe the issue is should Botchford have printed the comment. I think that's what most people are debating. I don't think he has. I think to defend himself, he's been caught in a lie, where he has shown that he's seen similar instances. No, they are not exact, but they are very similar, including location.

If you can't see the difference between Thornton masturbating on the ic, and a hockey team getting bodies in front of the net to help score goals, I don't know how to help you. You can use any tone, setting, caps lock or text colour you want, but in no way, shape or form is Thornton stating a truthful, specific way to help their team win hockey games anywhere near the same thing as Thornton saying he would whip out his rooster and stroke it if he scored four goals. The fact that he declined to repeat the joke on camera and would have no problem saying they need bodies in front of the net is proof enough of this.