Hockey Abuse Reckoning

[jroc]

^^ Based on some other recent tweets, I would assume it was Bob Hartley/Sven Baertchi

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Detroit was regarded as the model NHL franchise in the Holland/Bowman/Babcock era. We can say hard-ass, abusive coaching is wrong. But you're delusional if you think it's ineffective.

No. I think such tactics were once effective, but in line with a shift in the culture more generally this is becoming less and less so the case with younger players.

Some of the posters here and responses on social media regarding this as a product of "SJW," "snowflake," "woke," or "cancel" culture are not altogether wrong. Kids who are growing into adulthood now are different from kids who grew into adulthood a decade ago, who were different from when my generation grew into adulthood. But you won't find me among those pining for the "good ol' days" and decrying the "pussification" of the post-modern Western world. Quite to the contrary, I see the shift as empowering and confident. The more our kids learn to identify and stand up to bullying, the better we will all be for it.

Pro sports at this level fosters a win-at-all-costs mentality. NHL GMs and coaches who are at risk of losing their jobs if their team doesn't succeed are going to use whatever means they can to get those wins. And when they see franchises like Detroit make a habit of winning, they're going to copy that culture.

I don't think it has been so much a product of modelling as it has simply been an engrained element in hockey culture—in sporting culture more generally. Coaches bullied because they have always bullied. Players for decades tolerated it because its the only thing they knew.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by jonesy

I think it is much like the time honoured tactics of military training. Anyone with that background has probably seen similar abuse and bullying going on. I think it was supposed to make hardened soldiers. (similar tactics, methods and results as pro sports??)

In the panel on Saturday night Ron MacLean cited a high ranking Canadian military official who said something to the effect of there being a necessary higher tolerance for these bully-tactics the closer one is to combat, and how this has bled into sports philosophy and psychology. The analogues for sports have always been in the military, and while it seems like a natural model to follow, how ridiculous is it where lives are at stake on the one hand, and the other is a form of entertainment and leisure?

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It will be interesting to see how far this goes as it unfolds, and how many in upper management become implicated. Ron Francis is in the hot-seat right now, and I suspect that the contradicting stories being offered by him and Karmanos won't go away. Ken Holland and Lou Lamarollo—who hired Babcock in TO—will probably also need to answer questions as the NHL undertakes its own review.

Absolutely! Holland should definitely be asked about his role in all of this. If anything, it's clear he condoned Babcock's emotionally abusive style, based on this story.

The hockey culture being what it is, refuses to ask the tough questions of the higher ups. As such, I highly doubt anyone from the NHL, hockey Canada, etc, would dare even raise their eye brow at this.

[Boblobla]

If interested, the discussion on Backcock starts at 1:17 of the podcast, just getting to it now.

[mikeecho]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Chris Chelios was on Spittin' Chiclets yesterday, and relayed a story about his time in Detroit when Mike Babcock layed in to Johan Franzen so hard while on the bench that he suffered a nervous breakdown. This happened in 2011–12 when the Red Wings lost in the first round to Nashville.

He was also asked about how the team leadership handled these situations. He said that when Ken Holland was made aware of what was happening, he came own to the dressing room and delivered a speech, backed his coach, and threatened to trade anyone who did not fall in line.

I give Mike Commodore a lot of credit. It was somewhat understood that his vocal stance against Mike Babcock was in part due to his personal experience, but also as a pseudo spokesperson for all the players that endured torment from Babcock but didn’t feel they were in a place to speak up.

On the flip side, and I get that it can be easy to look at things from the past with 2019 glasses, but it’s fairly disheartening that guys like Chelios and Lidstrom (both of which are NHL legends with nothing to lose) didn’t appear to step up in any meaningful way.


Bad look as well for Holland who seemingly prioritized winning at all cost over the well being of his players.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

In the panel on Saturday night Ron MacLean cited a high ranking Canadian military official who said something to the effect of there being a necessary higher tolerance for these bully-tactics the closer one is to combat, and how this has bled into sports philosophy and psychology. The analogues for sports have always been in the military, and while it seems like a natural model to follow, how ridiculous is it where lives are at stake on the one hand, and the other is a form of entertainment and leisure?

Perhaps leisure, on the part of the player, will be the result of a change in philosophy.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It will be interesting to see how far this goes as it unfolds, and how many in upper management become implicated. Ron Francis is in the hot-seat right now, and I suspect that the contradicting stories being offered by him and Karmanos won't go away. Ken Holland and Lou Lamarollo—who hired Babcock in TO—will probably also need to answer questions as the NHL undertakes its own review.

Lamoriello was hired after Babcock. Karmanos walked back his statements to some extent.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by nobles_point

Lamoriello was hired after Babcock. Karmanos walked back his statements to some extent.

Thanks for the correction on the Babcock/TO timeline.

Do you have a link to the bolded part? I can't find anything online to indicate further comments from Karmonaos beyond what was reported in The Seattle Times last week. This is the most recent reported information I could locate, and it mentions nothing of the sort: https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/...steps-he-took/.

[Flamenspiel]

When looking at this topic, you have to differentiate between criminal abusers like Graham James, physical and racial abuse, and finally tough manipulative coaches. Certainly none of this is acceptable for kids and amateurs.

At the pro level, as long as it’s successful there will still be tough and manipulative coaches that understand player psychology. There is no secret that Scotty Bowman was tough and manipulative(Dryden wrote about it in “The Game”), but maybe some of you should ask the Habs players if they want to give their Stanley Cup rings back.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by mikeecho

On the flip side, and I get that it can be easy to look at things from the past with 2019 glasses, but it’s fairly disheartening that guys like Chelios and Lidstrom (both of which are NHL legends with nothing to lose) didn’t appear to step up in any meaningful way.

That is the issue. Chelios said that management made it clear that Babcock had the support of the team and there would be consequences to speaking out and stepping up.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Thanks for the correction on the Babcock/TO timeline. Do you have a link to the bolded part? I can't find anything online to indicate further comments from Karmonaos beyond what was reported in The Seattle Times last week. This is the most recent reported information I could locate, and it mentions nothing of the sort: https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/...steps-he-took/.

Scott Rintoul just mentioned on the air what seems to have been released through the NHL.

Adding to the confusion, the NHL appears to have stepped into the mix, given the Francis statement was released by the league on its letterhead. Asked by text about the discrepancy between his interview comments and Francis saying ownership was briefed about the alleged abuse, Karmanos responded Sunday with what reads like an NHL press release. He applauded the “spectacular job” Francis did with the Hurricanes adding he’ll do the same as NHL Seattle’s GM.

https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/...-player-abuse/

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

When looking at this topic, you have to differentiate between criminal abusers like Graham James, physical and racial abuse, and finally tough manipulative coaches. Certainly none of this is acceptable for kids and amateurs.

At the pro level, as long as it’s successful there will still be tough and manipulative coaches that understand player psychology.

Abuse is abuse. Granted, not all of it is physical, but all of it is absolutely wrong. "Manipulation" in this respect is likely a convenient cover for coaches who are emotionally and psychologically abusive. Babcock didn't touch Franzen and yet caused a psychologically, neurologically vulnerable player to suffer a nervous breakdown for god's sake. That is JUST NOT okay—not at ANY LEVEL.

There is no secret that Scotty Bowman was tough and manipulative(Dryden wrote about it in “The Game”), but maybe some of you should ask the Habs players if they want to give their Stanley Cup rings back.

I don't see why this is altogether relevant. As I pointed out above, what's happening now is part of a larger shift in culture, and most likely one in which the same antics once employed by Bowman are simply no longer effective.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by nobles_point

Scott Rintoul just mentioned on the air what seems to have been released through the NHL.



https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/...-player-abuse/

lol how did I not hear about this? This is a huge discrepancy that they've acknowledged and are just brushing under the rug.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

lol how did I not hear about this? This is a huge discrepancy that they've acknowledged and are just brushing under the rug.

Yeah, this feels like the NHL is circling their wagons and hoping that the issue will go away. How disappointing.

[SuperMatt18]

Shanahan was a former player of Babcock, so he would have seen his style first hand, and he still hired him in Toronto.

Francis is a former player that didn't seem to have an issue with the physical nature of Peters coaching.

My take is that physical abuse was not out of the norm in the NHL in the past, especially for players that played in the 80s/90s that are now in management positions.

But now times are changing, we look at things differently as a society, and physical abuse is not something that we should tolerate.

For the physical abuse aspect I'm not sure if that's something that a coach did in the past (say D.Sutter or Babcock) that it should really be held against them now. IMO a kick on the bench was seen as acceptable in the past and only now is it really getting traction as being a poor behaviour.

It should be treated differently and discussed separately to the racist behaviour from Peters. Racism has no place in sport, and should never be tolerated and should not have been tolerated 10 years ago either. Had that been widely known knowledge then he should have been fired then and never hired again.

[Mazrim]

More fallout:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1201569005431140352

[Yoho]

This reminds me of the diversity day episode off the Office

https://twitter.com/user/status/1201228091894353921

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by Yoho

This reminds me of the diversity day episode off the Office

https://twitter.com/user/status/1201228091894353921

Pretty cringe inducing from Ron there.

[mikeecho]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

That is the issue. Chelios said that management made it clear that Babcock had the support of the team and there would be consequences to speaking out and stepping up.

I guess my question is, what kind of consequences could guys like Lindstrom or Chelios face. They’re virtually the definition of untouchable especially back then.