Treliving

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It wasn't intended to be. The NHL clearly needs to change.

Maybe some need to change more than others. I’d like to think that not all involved in the sport have Neanderthal thinking about this kind of stuff.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Maybe some need to change more than others. I’d like to think that not all involved in the sport have Neanderthal thinking about this kind of stuff.

Agreed. But who are we, sitting on the outside and without the information at hand, to make such judgments to say whom is or is not most culpable?

[Corral]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don’t see how this level of condescending is helpful. Grow up.

If we assume the most likely scenario is true, then we should assume that Treliving did not know about the Akim situation. By the same token, we can also assume that Treliving knew Bill’s reputation. There’s not much wrong with the latter, considering how deeply embedded this is in hockey culture.

This is not rosy/blindness/whatever. This is just assuming the most likely situation is the true one. There’s worthy scrutiny here, but we don’t have to reach.

You know what they say about assuming..... it makes an ass out of u and me

[scotty2hotty]

Originally Posted by Corral

You know what they say about assuming..... it makes an ass out of u and me

Actually, assuming makes an ass out of u and ming.

[Corral]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Agreed. But who are we, sitting on the outside and without the information at hand, to make such judgments to say whom is or is not most culpable?

Isn’t that all this forum is? People on the outside passing judgement? What else is this place?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Corral

Isn’t that all this forum is? People on the outside passing judgement? What else is this place?

Sure. Ideally based on what we know. Not made up stories we invented to further a questionable narrative.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Corral

Isn’t that all this forum is? People on the outside passing judgement? What else is this place?

It's a DISCUSSION forum. In my world it is entirely possible to continue discussion without passing premature judgment in a vacuum of evidence.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Agreed. But who are we, sitting on the outside and without the information at hand, to make such judgments to say whom is or is not most culpable?

Absolutely right. I have a few assumptions and predispositions as it relates to certain NHL people, but for this stuff, what I really have are questions. That I know will likely never really be answered.

But I wouldn’t mind if NHL people in power are made a little uncomfortable and have to defend some of their roles and decisions along the way.

[Corral]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It's a DISCUSSION forum. In my world it is entirely possible to continue discussion without passing premature judgment in a vacuum of evidence.

Well you and I disagree on that. Most discussion on this forum is about passing judgment without evidence. Albeit on a much better platform than social media.

[GullFoss]

Just thought of this, but a lot of Tre's impressions with Peters was when he was coaching Team Canada, which is full of star players.

Peters was a bully to Aliu, Michal, Pesce, Lack and possibly others. Those four players are all guys who were pretty much marginal players at the time of the incidents.

So peters would have probably been a completely different guy around Tre during the Team Canada stint than he was with Carolina. Which explains why Tre left with a positive impression of the Peters, which maybe clouded his judgement