News Article: Babcock article - Noone is spared

[Ianturnedbull]

I was sexually harassed at my job. It was unnerving and stressful as you can imagine. Here's someone waiting for you to show up to work, screaming at you, saying things like: "if you don't come to my home this weekend I'm going to make things very hard for you here!". Then they leave hand written notes giving you instruction as to where and when.

I was younger, less experienced, and was in shock. I had all these thoughts:

I can't believe this person thinks that I gave a signal like that.

I can't believe how mentally unstable/angry this person is.

Who the f*** waits on the street outside of work to harrass someone?

In no way was I telling myself:

I'm going to have a sweet lawsuit/payout for this situation.

I'm going to beat the shit out of them if they do it again.

You trust people most of the time, but when shocking weirdness comes at you you're never prepared.

When you're at work you are expected to maintain a professional composure. You have a livelihood, wife, kids, a mortgage, etc. You can't go around punching everyone.

You can't just tell yourself "I'm 5'9" and they're 5'6", so I'll take care of this situation with a proper pier 6 beatdown".

The situation with Kyle Beach is brutal, and super weird. You can't expect Beach to beat the f*** out of him and then everything will be fine.

 

[notbias]

If someone told you Mitch Marner was abusing Ryan Reaves, how would you react?

I don't think Reaves has the personality to let it happen, it is hard to imagine this scenario, but I think if you replace Reaves with Freddy the Goat here, I could see it happening.

And in this scenario, I'd feel bad that a fringe NHLer who doesn't have a place on a roster is being abused by one of the stars on the team.

 

[rocketman588]

He could eat puppies for breakfast for all I care, I’m more confused by people talking about him as if he’s some sort of pro-grit defensive mastermind that could have turned us prime trap-era New Jersey with a broad street bullies level of grit if it wasn’t for our awful coddled core. Other than his Anaheim run and Team Canada he’s played euro style offensive possession games with Detroit when he had an all-star lineup that could handle it, god knows what after Lidstrom retired, and something close to Carlyle run and gun in Toronto.

The team Canada Sochi run was mega possession based tbh. We consistently had a bunch of tight circling of the puck. It's why we won a lot 2-1,1-0 during the medal round.

That was also the best D in Canada hockey history to go along with prime Price.

Unfortunately the two best Team Canada rosters would have been the two teams after that who didn't get to go. They were insane squads

 

[Dekes For Days]

You can pretend you know what happened if you want. You can also pretend acting sympathetic makes you morally superior. Just don’t expect me to participate in your delusions.
I’m mocking the people who feigned disingenuousness empathy for a fake victim in a fabricated situation (Reaves/Marner)

What happened is pretty public now, and you don't need to know every last piece of information to have empathy for a victim anyway. You certainly didn't have all of the information before you attempted to absolve involved people of blame, and you were dismissive of information like the power imbalances anyway. Having empathy is not "acting" or "delusional" or "disingenuous" or trying to be "morally superior". You are the one who created the created the fabricated situation, and you're the one who asked how people would feel, and then you mock their answers and call them liars because they have the basic human decency to sympathize with abuse victims, regardless of the form it comes in.

 

[1specter]

Babs seems like a garbage human. Anyone who goes off on cleaning / clerical staff just trying to make an honest living is a piece of shit.

 

[Dreakmur]

What happened is pretty public now, and you don't need to know every last piece of information to have empathy for a victim anyway. You certainly didn't have all of the information before you attempted to absolve involved people of blame, and you were dismissive of information like the power imbalances anyway.

Bits and pieces have been public, but We'll almost certainly never know what actually happened.

Empathy and incredulity are not mutually exclusive. I can - and in fact do - feel bad for Kyle Beach while also wondering how the heck it all happened.

Having empathy is not "acting" or "delusional" or "disingenuous" or trying to be "morally superior".

Not necessarily, but it does apply in this case.

You are the one who created the created the fabricated situation, and you're the one who asked how people would feel, and then you mock their answers and call them liars because they have the basic human decency to sympathize with abuse victims, regardless of the form it comes in.

Yes, I fabricated a situation where there was no abuse, and you jumped right into fake empathy and went for your moral high ground. Then I mocked you.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Bits and pieces have been public, but We'll almost certainly never know what actually happened.
Empathy and incredulity are not mutually exclusive. I can - and in fact do - feel bad for Kyle Beach while also wondering how the heck it all happened.
Not necessarily, but it does apply in this case.
Yes, I fabricated a situation where there was no abuse, and you jumped right into fake empathy and went for your moral high ground. Then I mocked you.

We know enough to know that, at the very least, Quenneville deserves blame. It's not all that hard to understand how it all happened, and absolving somebody involved and implying that Beach is a liar with no evidence because your outdated perspective on abuse can't fathom how a bigger person can be abused by a smaller, more powerful person, is not showing empathy. How can you claim that your scenario featured no abuse? Your scenario was, and I quote, "If someone told you Mitch Marner was abusing Ryan Reaves, how would you react?". Multiple people answered your question about your scenario and told you they'd have empathy for the bigger bodied victim in that situation, and you didn't like the answers so you mocked them and called them fake liars.

 

[Dreakmur]

We know enough to know that, at the very least, Quenneville deserves blame.

There's a difference between thinking he is blameless and wondering what exactly he should be blamed for. Unless you know exactly what Quenneville know and when he knew it, you can't really know that.

It's not all that hard to understand how it all happened, and absolving somebody involved and implying that Beach is a liar with no evidence because your outdated perspective on abuse can't fathom how a bigger person can be abused by a smaller, more powerful person, is not showing empathy.

Again, we didn't get facts. We got conjecture.

"Men speak opinions, not facts. Our eyes see perspectives, not truth."

How can you claim that your scenario featured no abuse? Your scenario was, and I quote, "If someone told you Mitch Marner was abusing Ryan Reaves, how would you react?"

Because somebody saying something happened doesn't mean it happened. I specifically made the scenario a false accusation.

 

[Dekes For Days]

There's a difference between thinking he is blameless and wondering what exactly he should be blamed for. Unless you know exactly what Quenneville know and when he knew it, you can't really know that. Again, we didn't get facts. We got conjecture. "Men speak opinions, not facts. Our eyes see perspectives, not truth."

We can't know anything 100% in this world, so we should ignore everything we do know, absolve abusers and their enablers, label abuse victims liars, and mock those who show empathy to the victim, is not a very compelling argument. Your initial argument wasn't even about what he knew. It was about it being okay to "not take it seriously" and "think it was a joke" because you don't understand that people can be abused by people physically smaller than them.

I specifically made the scenario a false accusation.

No you didn't. You created a scenario where abuse happened to a person physically bigger than the abuser. Everybody disagreed with your position that physically bigger people can't be abused by smaller people, and now you're claiming that it was secretly a fake scenario all along and mocking people for answering your question about it.

 

[Evilhomer]

Whether Babcock, Quennville, or anyone else, the reality is that sometimes people get to positions of success and power by not always doing things that other people would deem to be "right". It would be naive to think that Babcock is a monster relative to other similarly successful people in his profession. Like anything else, it's simply that his monstrous tendencies were made public, while those of other people remain private.

 

[Dreakmur]

We can't know anything 100% in this world, so we should ignore everything we do know, absolve abusers and their enablers, label abuse victims liars, and mock those who show empathy to the victim, is not a very compelling argument.

You forgot the most important thing. We have to build strawmen! Lots and lots of strawmen!

Your initial argument wasn't even about what he knew. It was about it being okay to "not take it seriously" and "think it was a joke" because you don't understand that people can be abused by people physically smaller than them.

There’s a difference between saying we should or shouldn’t do something and understanding why something was or wasn’t done.

When somebody makes a ridiculous claim, my first instinct isn’t to assume they’re being serious.

No you didn't. You created a scenario where abuse happened to a person physically bigger than the abuser. Everybody disagreed with your position that physically bigger people can't be abused by smaller people, and now you're claiming that it was secretly a fake scenario all along and mocking people for answering your question about it.

I created a scenario where one of our more sanctimonious posters would misunderstand, imagine a different scenario, and think he has an opportunity to be morally superior…

 

[Jimmy Firecracker]

Whether Babcock, Quennville, or anyone else, the reality is that sometimes people get to positions of success and power by not always doing things that other people would deem to be "right". It would be naive to think that Babcock is a monster relative to other similarly successful people in his profession. Like anything else, it's simply that his monstrous tendencies were made public, while those of other people remain private.

I think you’re vastly underestimating how despised Babcock is by players compared to other hard-asses in the league like Torterella.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Whether Babcock, Quennville, or anyone else, the reality is that sometimes people get to positions of success and power by not always doing things that other people would deem to be "right". It would be naive to think that Babcock is a monster relative to other similarly successful people in his profession. Like anything else, it's simply that his monstrous tendencies were made public, while those of other people remain private.

I'm sure there are other bad people in the sport, but not everybody is like this, and bad actions should be still be called out when it's exposed.

There’s a difference between saying we should or shouldn’t do something and understanding why something was or wasn’t done.
When somebody makes a ridiculous claim, my first instinct isn’t to assume they’re being serious.

Abuse is not a "ridiculous claim", and your first instinct should not be to assume that "it was a joke". There's also a difference between discussing why something was done, and absolving somebody who did the wrong thing for wrong reasons based on an incorrect perspective on abuse.

I created a scenario where one of our more sanctimonious posters would misunderstand, imagine a different scenario, and think he has an opportunity to be morally superior…

You created an abuse scenario involving a size mismatch, and everybody disagreed with you. You can try to retroactively claim a secret imaginary scenario in your mind all you want, but people are going to respond to the scenario you outline.

 

[Dreakmur]

Abuse is not a "ridiculous claim", and your first instinct should not be to assume that "it was a joke".

It can be, and when it is, I’ll think it’s a joke….

There's also a difference between discussing why something was done, and absolving somebody who did the wrong thing for wrong reasons based on an incorrect perspective on abuse.

There’s a difference between up and down. There’s a difference between wet and dry. What point are you even trying to make?

You created an abuse scenario involving a size mismatch, and everybody disagreed with you. You can try to retroactively claim a secret imaginary scenario in your mind all you want, but people are going to respond to the scenario you outline.

You misread it. Just take the L.

 

[Dekes For Days]

It can be, and when it is, I’ll think it’s a joke….
There’s a difference between up and down. There’s a difference between wet and dry. What point are you even trying to make?
You misread it.

Nothing about a person being abused by a physically smaller person is a joke. The point was that your attempt to absolve Quenneville was wrong. I read it correctly. You're just attempting to retroactively claim that you secretly imagined something different than you wrote.

 

[Dreakmur]

Nothing about a person being abused by a physically smaller person is a joke.

Actual abuse isn’t a joke. That doesn’t mean some claims don’t seem like jokes.

The point was that your attempt to absolve Quenneville was wrong. I read it correctly. You're just attempting to retroactively claim that you secretly imagined something different than you wrote.

The point was to create a scenario where any reasonable person would know the claims of abuse were false. You can pretend Marner abusing Reaves is believable if it makes you feel better….

Yes, it absolutely was designed to show that Quennevile may not have even believed the abuse was happening. Some claims are just unbelievable, and seem like jokes.

 

[Evilhomer]

I think you’re vastly underestimating how despised Babcock is by players compared to other hard-asses in the league like Torterella.

Maybe, but I have a general tendency to assume that everyone has some asshole in them.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Actual abuse isn’t a joke. That doesn’t mean some claims don’t seem like jokes. The point was to create a scenario where any reasonable person would know the claims of abuse were false. You can pretend Marner abusing Reaves is believable if it makes you feel better…. Yes, it absolutely was designed to show that Quennevile may not have even believed the abuse was happening. Some claims are just unbelievable, and seem like jokes.

Abuse isn't a joke, and it can come in many forms. Any reasonable person would understand that a person can be abused by somebody smaller than them, and that doesn't make a claim false or a joke. If Quenneville didn't take the abuse allegations seriously, he is an idiot and a bad coach. If he did take the abuse allegations seriously and still chose to do nothing, he is a selfish idiot and a bad coach. Either way, he failed his responsibilities in a position of power, and blame is justified.

 

[Dreakmur]

Abuse isn't a joke, and it can come in many forms. Any reasonable person would understand that a person can be abused by somebody smaller than them, and that doesn't make a claim false or a joke.

As I said, real abuse isn’t a joke. Ridiculous claims of abuse are. The idea that Marner could abuse Reaves is hilarious.

If Quenneville didn't take the abuse allegations seriously, he is an idiot and a bad coach. If he did take the abuse allegations seriously and still chose to do nothing, he is a selfish idiot and a bad coach. Either way, he failed his responsibilities in a position of power, and blame is justified.

What exactly did Quennville know? What exactly was communicated to him to ensure he knew it? When exactly did he know it? What exactly should he have done?

What exactly are his responsibilities? He’s not the players’ boss. He’s not HR. He’s not in a position over vulnerable people.

 

[acrobaticgoalie]

I’m still not sure how a 6’3” professional athlete gets abused by a 5’7” non-athlete. I find it hard to blame Q for not really taking it seriously. I probably would think it was a joke.

I'm pretty sure in the Rick Westhead interview, he said that Aldridge had a weapon. A baseball bat I think.

We're also talking about a 19 yr old kid.

 

[Dekes For Days]

As I said, real abuse isn’t a joke. Ridiculous claims of abuse are. The idea that Marner could abuse Reaves is hilarious.
What exactly did Quennville know? What exactly was communicated to him to ensure he knew it? When exactly did he know it? What exactly should he have done?
What exactly are his responsibilities? He’s not the players’ boss. He’s not HR. He’s not in a position over vulnerable people.

"Real abuse" can feature an abuser being physically smaller than their victim, and it is not "ridiculous, "hilarious", or "a joke". The investigation confirmed that Quenneville knew during that hockey season, and head coaches have responsibilities, even beyond the human decency that should be expected of anyone to not enable abuse. It's odd that you're fighting so hard to muddy the waters and absolve him when even Quenneville himself has acknowledged that the abuse happened, that he had responsibilities and played a part in the ordeal Beach endured, and that he had learning and self-reflection to do. I recommend that you educate yourself on abuse too.

 

[MCR74]

Why even give the scumbag any airtime?

 

[Taylor Halls Teeth]

"Real abuse" can feature an abuser being physically smaller than their victim, and it is not "ridiculous, "hilarious", or "a joke". The investigation confirmed that Quenneville knew during that hockey season, and head coaches have responsibilities, even beyond the human decency that should be expected of anyone to not enable abuse. It's odd that you're fighting so hard to muddy the waters and absolve him when even Quenneville himself has acknowledged that the abuse happened, that he had responsibilities and played a part in the ordeal Beach endured, and that he had learning and self-reflection to do. I recommend that you educate yourself on abuse too.

Nobody here has a dog in this fight because Quenneville will never coach the Leafs. However..

Didn't this come to light during the playoff run? Sorry if there has been more recent reporting on this but the Jenner and Block report said he was present in the meeting after game 4 of the semi finals so May 23rdish

there is a wide variety of witness accounts about the events of May 21 to 23. There is consistency in the accounts ,however, that Al MacIsaac (Senior Director of Hockey Administration) heard something had occurred involving Aldrich and John Doe, dispatched Jim Gary to speak to John Doe about what had happened,...

Gary recalled during his interview that MacIsaac approached him on the afternoon of May 23 and asked to speak to him privately. Gary recalled that he and MacIsaac went into the hallway outside the executive game suite at the United Center, where MacIsaac told Gary that a staff member, whom MacIsaac did not identify, indicated that John Doe and Black Ace 1 were receiving invitations for sex from Aldrich. Gary recalled that MacIsaac asked Gary to check it out” and speak to the two players.

John Doe recalled that Gary told John Doe that “we heard some serious things and then asked if John Doe knew if Black Aces had contact with Aldrich or if John Doe knew if anything had occurred with Aldrich. John Doe recalled responding that he did not know about others, but something happened to him John Doe stated that he then told Gary the entire story of the sexual encounter with Aldrich.

Gary stated John Doe then told Gary that Aldrich was pressuring John Doe to have sex with him and that Aldrich told John Doe that if John Doe did not give in, Aldrich could hurt John Doe’s career. Gary recalled sensing that Aldrich’s statement about his career concerned John Doe. Gary further recalled John Doe stating that he responded to Aldrich that he was not into “that stuff.” Gary stated that he asked John Doe what John Doe had experienced, and John Doe responded that Aldrich kept pressuring him, but that John Doe did not have a direct physical encounter with Aldrich because he was not “into it.” Gary recalled that he believed what John Doe told him, both about Aldrich’s efforts to pressure John Doe into sex and Aldrich’s threats to harm John Doe’s career

After Game 4 ended, a meeting occurred in John McDonough’s office in theFront Office space at the United Center. Jim Gary, Stan Bowman, Al MacIsaac,John McDonough, Kevin Cheveldayoff, and Jay Blunk were present. The participants recalled the meeting lasting for between ten and twenty-fiveminutes. After the meeting started, Bowman recalled McDonough saying that Quenneville should participate because the incident involved Aldrich, acoach. Quenneville was subsequently called to the Front Office to join themeeting. When interviewed, Quenneville stated that being called into a meeting in McDonough’s office was unusual since the game had just ended.

Gary recalled during his interview that he told the assembled group in McDonough’s office what John Doe told him: that Aldrich was pressuring John Doe for sex, that John Doe told Aldrich he was not “into that,” and that Aldrich threatened John Doe by saying if John Doe did not comply, Aldrich could hurt John Doe’s career. Gary recalled that he also expressed that John Doe was uncomfortable around Aldrich due to the situation. Gary recalled the participants seemed to be stunned.

I'm not sure what happened outside of what's in this report but this seems to be the very end of the season when this happened and at least according to Mr Gary its not clear exactly what he kicked upstairs to management. I thought the real issue was Quenneville had given a reference to Aldrich after he was let go. There is lots in the report about how Aldrich was telling young players he had power over their future so you can see how he was setting things up but was there another Q interaction after this? Unless you think Gary maybe sanitized his reporting to Bowman?

 

[Gabriel426]

Nobody here has a dog in this fight because Quenneville will never coach the Leafs. However..

Didn't this come to light during the playoff run? Sorry if there has been more recent reporting on this but the Jenner and Block report said he was present in the meeting after game 4 of the semi finals so May 23rdish

there is a wide variety of witness accounts about the events of May 21 to 23. There is consistency in the accounts ,however, that Al MacIsaac (Senior Director of Hockey Administration) heard something had occurred involving Aldrich and John Doe, dispatched Jim Gary to speak to John Doe about what had happened,...

Gary recalled during his interview that MacIsaac approached him on the afternoon of May 23 and asked to speak to him privately. Gary recalled that he and MacIsaac went into the hallway outside the executive game suite at the United Center, where MacIsaac told Gary that a staff member, whom MacIsaac did not identify, indicated that John Doe and Black Ace 1 were receiving invitations for sex from Aldrich. Gary recalled that MacIsaac asked Gary to check it out” and speak to the two players.

John Doe recalled that Gary told John Doe that “we heard some serious things and then asked if John Doe knew if Black Aces had contact with Aldrich or if John Doe knew if anything had occurred with Aldrich. John Doe recalled responding that he did not know about others, but something happened to him John Doe stated that he then told Gary the entire story of the sexual encounter with Aldrich.

Gary stated John Doe then told Gary that Aldrich was pressuring John Doe to have sex with him and that Aldrich told John Doe that if John Doe did not give in, Aldrich could hurt John Doe’s career. Gary recalled sensing that Aldrich’s statement about his career concerned John Doe. Gary further recalled John Doe stating that he responded to Aldrich that he was not into “that stuff.” Gary stated that he asked John Doe what John Doe had experienced, and John Doe responded that Aldrich kept pressuring him, but that John Doe did not have a direct physical encounter with Aldrich because he was not “into it.” Gary recalled that he believed what John Doe told him, both about Aldrich’s efforts to pressure John Doe into sex and Aldrich’s threats to harm John Doe’s career

After Game 4 ended, a meeting occurred in John McDonough’s office in theFront Office space at the United Center. Jim Gary, Stan Bowman, Al MacIsaac,John McDonough, Kevin Cheveldayoff, and Jay Blunk were present. The participants recalled the meeting lasting for between ten and twenty-fiveminutes. After the meeting started, Bowman recalled McDonough saying that Quenneville should participate because the incident involved Aldrich, acoach. Quenneville was subsequently called to the Front Office to join themeeting. When interviewed, Quenneville stated that being called into a meeting in McDonough’s office was unusual since the game had just ended.

Gary recalled during his interview that he told the assembled group in McDonough’s office what John Doe told him: that Aldrich was pressuring John Doe for sex, that John Doe told Aldrich he was not “into that,” and that Aldrich threatened John Doe by saying if John Doe did not comply, Aldrich could hurt John Doe’s career. Gary recalled that he also expressed that John Doe was uncomfortable around Aldrich due to the situation. Gary recalled the participants seemed to be stunned.

I'm not sure what happened outside of what's in this report but this seems to be the very end of the season when this happened and at least according to Mr Gary its not clear exactly what he kicked upstairs to management. I thought the real issue was Quenneville had given a reference to Aldrich after he was let go. There is lots in the report about how Aldrich was telling young players he had power over their future so you can see how he was setting things up but was there another Q interaction after this? Unless you think Gary maybe sanitized his reporting to Bowman?

If my memory serves me right, as I could remembered it wrong. It was agreed that the issues will be handled by HR....and what made Q looked bad was that he was quoted in saying, Lets focus on winning the Cup and handle this afterwards or something like that.
To me, and this is my opinion, Unless Q knew Aldrich's actions all along and just turned the other way, Q was made into someone who just wanted to win at any costs. But if we take away the names, teams, and just look at it as a big company. Q is really the department head of the company, and he was called into an executive meeting bc it involved a sexual harassment case with members in his department. IF HR is getting involve, and Q agreed to it. That's not much Q could had done more in terms of investigation. I don't think any companies will ask Aldrich to take a leave of absence or suspends him on an accusation without doing any investigations. However, Q and the Hawks should had been more sensitive and aware of what went on with the Black Aces and Aldrich.

 

[Trapper]

I always thought when Babcock said, "there will be pain", that he meant something else...

Ha Ha, when you make a deal with the Devil he doesn’t take just anything, he takes everything. The pain keeps going.