I'm not advocating here. I'm just not sure what the tools are. Quenneville isn't part of the CBA for players. I don't know the details of what authority is there for Bettman, and a lot of comments here seem to have learned more about Q's role in this than what I've read. I think his situation is more complicated. Maybe the leadership of the Panthers make it a lot simpler by forcing him out.
Maybe he wouldn't want the job but honestly Torts could be a good fit for the Blackhawks if they get rid of Colliton. Hockey wise he could help turn them around with his style, but also on and off the ice he seems to hold his players accountable, has show that he cares about his players underneath the rough exterior, and he has said he protects his players. So he would also be a good fit to help set the culture of the team, and begin the rebuild of that.
Oh wow. This take is so wrong I don’t even know where to start.
Brian answered you already, but the larger point is they had a moral obligation to investigate the allegation and instead decided it was a distraction from their playoff run so they ignored it. And then gave Aldrich positive review and let him leave after another allegation. And Aldrich then assaulted another kid. Because Blackhawks failed to do decent thing initially. Which isn’t to blindly assume truth of allegation, but to take allegation seriously and make sure that it was investigated. Which they didn’t do. Because they didn’t care.
Good. He should never coach again. He lacks moral backbone required.
I don’t know what exactly they should have done. But I know they should have cared. And not ignore it because it was inconvenient. These type of allegations should always be taken seriously. They may have found it was consensual. Or didn’t happen even. But instead they buried it. Because it wasn’t their priority. Beach wasn’t their priority. And Aldrich assaulted other people. And yes, I think evidence points toward Aldrich assaulting Beach. But we only know that because 10 years later law firm investigated. 10 years too late.
I just don’t understand internal investigations on these matters. Clearly, objectivity will be difficult to achieve without 3rd party involvement even for moral organizations. If they even do them at all (Hawks as a case in point).
To the bolded: Yes. You absolutely put him on leave. Even if it’s paid leave, get him away from the team while you’re investigate. If one of your players accuses a coach of committing a felony against him, you can’t possibly keep him around the team while you investigate it.
Often times company has hr do them. But outside investigations can be better. But the point here is the Blackhawks did nothing. Not internal, not HR, not external, nothing. Until lawsuit a decade later. So regardless of what best practice would be, Hawks didn’t do it.
Right. I am agreeing. The whole system of reporting is messed up.
Roughly 15 years ago I had employee come to me with allegation of what was basically sexual harassment against her by another employee. I listened to her, expressed sympathy for what she described, and told her I would get back to her after I spoke to HR. This was harassment and not assault, admittedly. But I had no idea this could have been occurring. I thought I hired only good folks. I was in charge of the department, and while I didn’t know either employee well, both of these employees reported to a supervisor who reported to me.
Internal investigations (done in conjunction with a company's HR and legal counsel) can be very helpful.
I agree. The attorney route is something we should be communicating to the masses. But how many know that, assume they have to pay for legal counsel, they cannot afford to pay assumed fees and forego it all together?
Still not the worst contact signed the past 6 months for a defensemen.
