Around The League 40: As we barrel towards 40 teams

[Navin R Slavin]

So, uhhhh... anyone know who the Blackhawks in game host is?

Edit: holy shit, it's one of Chris Chelios's daughters.

I know, I'm a hypocrite and a terrible person. But if the suspicion moves to staff interactions...

 

[Blueline Bomber]

So, uhhhh... anyone know who the Blackhawks in game host is?

Edit: holy shit, it's one of Chris Chelios's daughters.

I know, I'm a hypocrite and a terrible person. But if the suspicion moves to staff interactions...

Because the Canes are on ESPN, I’m working the Chicago/Seattle game tonight. I‘m hoping against all hope that I’ll pick up some scuttlebutt from the truck about the situation.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

If it’s not specifically involving another player, but it does involve the team, could it be staff related? Didn‘t a coach get let go for being inappropriate with the staff and the wording was very similar to what was said here?

But you’d think any workplace harassment would involve the legal system and not just NHL punishment

Workplace harassment is generally civil in nature and not criminal, which means that it can cost the org $$$, which means the hammer comes down very quickly when suspicions arise. Red Hat lost a CFO under very similar circumstances.

 

[sabremike]

Because the Canes are on ESPN, I’m working the Chicago/Seattle game tonight. I‘m hoping against all hope that I’ll pick up some scuttlebutt from the truck about the situation.

Doing something, or doing someone?

I mean, everyone involved is always going to totally deny things, but the way this got around without seeming to originate with fans doing jokes or anything like that- it's certainly credible at this point. Drugs/alcohol alone certainly don't lead to insta-termination of a contract. Pretty sure the player has to have a chance to go through the player assistance program first.

I have it on good authority that he tore the "Do not remove" tag off of a mattress.

 

[cptjeff]

As much as I would absolutely love to believe this, HR restrictions are very much a thing. There are any number of embarrassing things that could have happened that are both plausible and absolutely not to be shared in public under threat of lawsuit.

People love to say that lawyers and HR are more restrictive in these situations than they actually are because it gives them an out. However, truth is an absolute defense to any claim of defamation. HIPPA is about the only legal restriction on what you can say in this situation as long as what you are saying is true, or even if you reasonably believe it to be true. There is no real threat of a lawsuit from disclosure- it burns bridges, sure, but they've already done that.

They could say much, much more. They are actively choosing not to.

If it’s not specifically involving another player,

Given the very long record of NHL teams including the Blackhawks flagrantly lying to attempt damage control, that's a very, very, very large if.

Any denial is worthless if it does not contain any affirmative statements about what did happen. Whether they like it or not, the NHL is in the public eye, its players and senior team leadership are public figures, and the public is entitled to comment. And will. If the Blackhawks think these rumors are harming players and families, it is within their power to effectively end them by giving an alternative true explanation. The fact that they are specifically choosing not to do that tells you one of three things: The real reason falls into the very narrow category of things they cannot legally disclose, they think the rumors are less harmful than telling the truth would be, or the alternative explanations are not true. Telling an an alternative explanation that isn't true *would* be actionable as defamatory and grounds for a wrongful termination claim.


Ultimately, they are going to have to say something substantive here if the rumors are false. And the longer they don't, the less trust they'll have.

PR rule #1: Get it out early, get it out on your terms.

It's also worth noting that if the rumors are true, this is exactly what the PR effort would have to look like. You can't provide any other explanation because an affirmative assertion of something else would be defamation. Denying everything is all you can do to attempt to protect the reputations of everyone involved, including those who remain associated with the team and its players.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

People love to say that lawyers and HR are more restrictive in these situations than they actually are because it gives them an out. However, truth is an absolute defense to any claim of defamation. HIPPA is about the only legal restriction on what you can say in this situation as long as what you are saying is true, or even if you reasonably believe it to be true. There is no real threat of a lawsuit from disclosure- it burns bridges, sure, but they've already done that.

They could say much, much more. They are actively choosing not to.



Given the very long record of NHL teams including the Blackhawks flagrantly lying to attempt damage control, that's a very, very, very large if.

Any denial is worthless if it does not contain any affirmative statements about what did happen. Whether they like it or not, the NHL is in the public eye, its players and senior team leadership are public figures, and the public is entitled to comment. And will. If the Blackhawks think these rumors are harming players and families, it is within their power to effectively end them by giving an alternative true explanation. The fact that they are specifically choosing not to do that tells you one of three things: The real reason falls into the very narrow category of things they cannot legally disclose, they think the rumors are less harmful than telling the truth would be, or the alternative explanations are not true. Telling an an alternative explanation that isn't true *would* be actionable as defamatory and grounds for a wrongful termination claim.


Ultimately, they are going to have to say something substantive here if the rumors are false. And the longer they don't, the less trust they'll have.

PR rule #1: Get it out early, get it out on your terms.

Nah, their best bet is to simply not say anything more than they have. They addressed the rumors, denied them, and gave a bit more context about why Perry is out. As far as they're concerned, the matter is dealt with.

Whether people believe them or not is entirely up to that individual.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

Nah, their best bet is to simply not say anything more than they have. They addressed the rumors, denied them, and gave a bit more context about why Perry is out. As far as they're concerned, the matter is dealt with.

Whether people believe them or not is entirely up to that individual.

This is correct. They don't actually have to say shit. And rule #1 of PR is not "get ahead of it". It's "pretend nothing happened until you absolutely can't."

People love to say that lawyers and HR are more restrictive in these situations than they actually are because it gives them an out. However, truth is an absolute defense to any claim of defamation. HIPPA is about the only legal restriction on what you can say in this situation as long as what you are saying is true, or even if you reasonably believe it to be true. There is no real threat of a lawsuit from disclosure- it burns bridges, sure, but they've already done that.

They could say much, much more. They are actively choosing not to.



Given the very long record of NHL teams including the Blackhawks flagrantly lying to attempt damage control, that's a very, very, very large if.

Any denial is worthless if it does not contain any affirmative statements about what did happen. Whether they like it or not, the NHL is in the public eye, its players and senior team leadership are public figures, and the public is entitled to comment. And will. If the Blackhawks think these rumors are harming players and families, it is within their power to effectively end them by giving an alternative true explanation. The fact that they are specifically choosing not to do that tells you one of three things: The real reason falls into the very narrow category of things they cannot legally disclose, they think the rumors are less harmful than telling the truth would be, or the alternative explanations are not true. Telling an an alternative explanation that isn't true *would* be actionable as defamatory and grounds for a wrongful termination claim.


Ultimately, they are going to have to say something substantive here if the rumors are false. And the longer they don't, the less trust they'll have.

PR rule #1: Get it out early, get it out on your terms.

It's also worth noting that if the rumors are true, this is exactly what the PR effort would have to look like. You can't provide any other explanation because an affirmative assertion of something else would be defamation. Denying everything is all you can do to attempt to protect the reputations of everyone involved, including those who remain associated with the team and its players.

Man, you are hoping harrrrrd for this to be true. And maybe you're right! But it's also very likely that you're not.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

I mean, we can't get mad at the Blackhawks for not protecting people in their employ in 2010 while simultaneously getting mad at them in this situation for not saying anything to protect people in their employ.

 

[cptjeff]

Nah, their best bet is to simply not say anything more than they have. They addressed the rumors, denied them, and gave a bit more context about why Perry is out. As far as they're concerned, the matter is dealt with.

Whether people believe them or not is entirely up to that individual.

That's the best they can do if the rumors are true. If they are not true, they can do much, much better, since they do not have to shield Perry's reputation from the consequences of the truth. They are free to throw him under the bus to protect their reputation as long as they are telling the truth and not running afoul of HIPAA.

For example, look at Aldrich. The NHL released a detailed investigatory report of what he did and how it was covered up and by whom, and that was not foreclosed by HR or lawyers, because they did a scrupulous investigation and only disclosed things they could back up as the truth with evidence. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Nothing legally stopping them from doing that here.

Davidson claimed that the rumors are truly hurting the family. If that's the case, and they're false, he's choosing to prioritize protecting Perry's reputation, after Perry did something unquestionably terrible, whatever it was, over the reputations of the family members of his star player.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

That's the best they can do if the rumors are true. If they are not true, they can do much, much better, since they do not have to shield Perry's reputation from the consequences of the truth. They are free to throw him under the bus to protect their reputation as long as they are telling the truth and not running afoul of HIPAA.

For example, look at Aldrich. The NHL released a detailed investigatory report of what he did and how it was covered up and by whom, and that was not foreclosed by HR or lawyers, because they did a scrupulous investigation and only disclosed things they could back up as the truth with evidence. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Nothing legally stopping them from doing that here.

Davidson claimed that the rumors are truly hurting the family. If that's the case, and they're false, he's choosing to prioritize protecting Perry's reputation, after Perry did something unquestionably terrible, whatever it was, over the reputations of the family members of his star player.

Why do you think he's shielding Perry's reputation and not the other person who might be involved?

If Perry did something to a staff member (for example) and said staff member didn't want to be hounded by news outlets and/or Twitter witch hunts because of it, why wouldn't they refuse to give details?

 

[Navin R Slavin]

That's the best they can do if the rumors are true. If they are not true, they can do much, much better, since they do not have to shield Perry's reputation from the consequences of the truth. They are free to throw him under the bus to protect their reputation as long as they are telling the truth and not running afoul of HIPAA.

For example, look at Aldrich. The NHL released a detailed investigatory report of what he did and how it was covered up and by whom, and that was not foreclosed by HR or lawyers, because they did a scrupulous investigation and only disclosed things they could back up as the truth with evidence. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Nothing legally stopping them from doing that here.

Davidson claimed that the rumors are truly hurting the family. If that's the case, and they're false, he's choosing to prioritize protecting Perry's reputation, after Perry did something unquestionably terrible, whatever it was, over the reputations of the family members of his star player.

Ok, I kinda buy this argument, except that it's very early days, and it takes some time to weigh out these kinds of options, especially if counsel is involved for any reason.

It's also very possible that he did something similarly shitty but to a different person in the org, in which case the silence would feel the same.

 

[cptjeff]

I mean, we can't get mad at the Blackhawks for not protecting people in their employ in 2010 while simultaneously getting mad at them in this situation for not saying anything to protect people in their employ.

What they can do to protect people in their employ is to put the rumors to rest by throwing the person no longer in their employ under a bus.


And the Blackhawks did protect somebody in their employ in 2010. The wrong person.

This is correct. They don't actually have to say shit. And rule #1 of PR is not "get ahead of it". It's "pretend nothing happened until you absolutely can't."


Man, you are hoping harrrrrd for this to be true. And maybe you're right! But it's also very likely that you're not.

Boy oh boy, are you wrong on PR. Any, ANY PR pro will tell you that the first rule is to get ahead of things (obviously once the story breaks, if nobody has any whiff you don't need PR). If you deny until you can't, the narrative already forms and you can't control it. If you're out early, you can frame it in a way that's as kind to you as possible, get your side out first and win people over. If you run from it, the public will have its mind made up before you ever can tell your side of the story. Any PR professional will also tell you that clients fight that advice tooth and nail and insist on deny, deny, deny, until they wind up resigning with their name forever ruined.

As for me, I really don't care if this is true. I started this morning dismissing it as totally silly, no way it's true blather. Absolutely everything the Blackhawks have done or said since has made me thing the exact opposite.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

The fact of the matter is the Hawks don't have to sate the thirst of Twitter, HF, Reddit, etc. Their responsibility is to their employees, and very likely, whatever Perry did affected such. So they remove Perry from their employ, addressed a rumor that was affecting another person in said employ, while protecting the victim from the brunt of the investigation.

 

[cptjeff]

Why do you think he's shielding Perry's reputation and not the other person who might be involved?

If Perry did something to a staff member (for example) and said staff member didn't want to be hounded by news outlets and/or Twitter witch hunts because of it, why wouldn't they refuse to give details?

Here's what you say in that case:

"Mr. Perry had an relationship in violation of our team standards of conduct with somebody he encountered in the workplace but who is not in any way related to any other player."

Easy pezy.

 

[cptjeff]

The fact of the matter is the Hawks don't have to sate the thirst of Twitter, HF, Reddit, etc. Their responsibility is to their employees, and very likely, whatever Perry did affected such. So they remove Perry from their employ, addressed a rumor that was affecting another person in said employ, while protecting the victim from the brunt of the investigation.

If it's false, this approach has failed their employees by only reinforcing a harmful rumor.

You can yell and scream all day that people don't have a right to know. And they don't. But the flip side of that is that you don't have any right to tell them what to think or not think. If you want fans to buy what you're selling them, you have to convince them that what you're saying is true.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

Here's what you say in that case:

"Mr. Perry had an relationship in violation of our team standards of conduct with somebody he encountered in the workplace but who is not in any way related to any other player."

Easy pezy.

They literally just said today that it has nothing to do with players or their families, *and* they literally just said today that his behavior was a violation of team standards.

The only difference between their statement and your statement is that your statement confirms a detail that's actually nobody's business in real life. Their only duty was to make it clear why he was released. That's it.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

If it's false, this approach has failed their employees by only reinforcing a harmful rumor.

You can yell and scream all day that people don't have a right to know. And they don't. But the flip side of that is that you don't have any right to tell them what to think or not think. If you want fans to buy what you're selling them, you have to convince them that what you're saying is true.

They didn't reinforce a harmful rumor. In fact, they denied the rumor entirely. Whether people believe them or not is entirely up to that individual.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

If it's false, this approach has failed their employees by only reinforcing a harmful rumor.

You can yell and scream all day that people don't have a right to know. And they don't. But the flip side of that is that you don't have any right to tell them what to think or not think. If you want fans to buy what you're selling them, you have to convince them that what you're saying is true.

You just have to convince paying fans that Corey Perry was an asshole who did something bad and deserved to get shitcanned. Not a stretch! Job done! And the preponderance of actual Hawks fans don't seem to want more details, if the HFHawks are any indication. It's the rest of us heartless bastards that want the gory details.

(By the way, I am in no way invested in the outcome of this conversation except that it's f***ing hilarious and I'm enjoying every second of it.)

 

[Svechhammer]

I mean, we can't get mad at the Blackhawks for not protecting people in their employ in 2010 while simultaneously getting mad at them in this situation for not saying anything to protect people in their employ.

It's the reaction to the 2010 events that has me not believing a damn thing coming from the Blackhawks front office about this whole thing right now.

 

[cptjeff]

They literally just said today that it has nothing to do with players or their families, *and* they literally just said today that his behavior was a violation of team standards.

That only difference between their statement and your statement is that it confirms a detail that's actually nobody's business in real life.

They didn't reinforce a harmful rumor. In fact, they denied the rumor entirely. Whether people believe them or not is entirely up to that individual.

A denial is worth exactly zero. In the case of the Blackhawks, it's worth even less. Again, go back to CBJ this offseason. They issued a very strong denial on the Babcock rumors. The rumors were totally true and even worse than initially stated. And I don't know if you've heard, but the Blackhawks have a lot less trust and goodwill than the Jackets do.

You can't just say "don't believe what you hear, just trust us when we say it wasn't that", you have to say "that was not true, this is".


Think about two politicians accused of taking bribes after their tax returns show large cash deposits. One just says "that money wasn't a bribe". The other says "that money was the repayment of a loan I gave to my brother to help him through some personal difficulties". Which one are you going to believe? The one who got caught with a large sum of cash coming into his bank account who just wants you to trust him, or the one who actually has a plausible case for why he's depositing large sums? Obviously, you still need to verify the latter claim, but it's a much, much more credible case than the first guy's 'just trust me bro'.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

Think about two politicians accused of taking bribes after their tax returns show large cash deposits. One just says "that money wasn't a bribe". The other says "that money was the repayment of a loan I gave to my brother to help him through some personal difficulties". Which one are you going to believe? The one who got caught with a large sum of cash coming into his bank account who just wants you to trust him, or the one who actually has a plausible case for why he's depositing large sums? Obviously, you still need to verify the latter claim, but it's a much, much more credible case than the first guy's 'just trust me bro'.

Lol, it's totally not more credible! It's just that one is a more experienced liar! I'm not going to believe either of them! What were we talking about again?

"I did not have sex with that woman Melanie Bedard."

 

[Blueline Bomber]

It's the reaction to the 2010 events that has me not believing a damn thing coming from the Blackhawks front office about this whole thing right now.

Which is fair, but at the same time, you have to imagine they're well aware that another incident will end very poorly for them. So they will 100% squash even the hint of something indecent, which appears to be what happened here

And given that the league and the NHLPA is OK with this termination, it's likely not a coverup, but more of a protection of the victim, which is what you'd expect in such a situation

 

[Navin R Slavin]

Which is fair, but at the same time, you have to imagine they're well aware that another incident will end very poorly for them. So they will 100% squash even the hint of something indecent, which appears to be what happened here

And given that the league and the NHLPA is OK with this termination, it's likely not a coverup, but more of a protection of the victim, which is what you'd expect in such a situation

I don't think we can say that any scenario is more or less likely at this point, really. I think that lots of scenarios are plausible.

The best part is that all of these scenarios end with Corey Perry getting tossed out on his ass!

 

[Svechhammer]

Which is fair, but at the same time, you have to imagine they're well aware that another incident will end very poorly for them. So they will 100% squash even the hint of something indecent, which appears to be what happened here

And given that the league and the NHLPA is OK with this termination, it's likely not a coverup, but more of a protection of the victim, which is what you'd expect in such a situation

Lol yeah I don't think they have learned that lesson at all. The last time it all blew up they got a slap on the wrist and ended up with Bedard in the draft. That's a franchise that right now pretty much knows they can do what they want and get away with it because their market is too big to fail.

 

[cptjeff]

Lol, it's totally not more credible! It's just that one is a more experienced liar! I'm not going to believe either of them! What were we talking about again?

"I did not have sex with that woman Melanie Bedard."

Sigh. They are not remotely the same.

One makes no positive claims, it relies entirely on somebody's trust of the claimant. The second makes a positive claim that can be corroborated by other evidence independent of the speaker's credibility. Even the implication that a claim can be corroborated adds significant credibility.

The Blackhawks already have independent corroboration from the NHLPA that whatever the actual reason was is valid. If they make even a vague alternative claim, the NHLPA's agreement more or less proves the alternative claim and puts the rumor to rest. But if they don't make any alternative claim about what happened, they're asking us to believe that the only narrative we have of what happened is not true on the basis of trust in them alone. Which nobody should or will.


Look, I live in the world of politics and government. A non-credible denial is almost always a confirmation. What the Blackhawks just offered was not a credible denial.