Blackhawks sued (again) by teammate of Kyle Beach for sexual assault

[norrisnick]

If the Blackhawks were currently a good hockey team, what punishment would people have wanted for this? I.e. if their first round draft picks were currently in the 25-32 range of the draft, would you still want their draft picks to be revoked?

They covered it up to protect their playoff run. Being ineligible for the playoffs for a few years sounds about right...

 

[Memento]

I keep asking, why are so many weirdos here thinking Quenneville is right. That it's a on ice advantage. It's so nonsensical

It's a video coach.. . Even if it was an assistant coach or something higher. It's not a competitive advantage. Just fire or suspsend the guy and release a NDA will not talk about it at the time. There's no distraction or complications here.

'
And yet they did not fire or suspend Aldrich throughout that entire Cup run. They let him continue to assault Kyle Beach and John Doe. They didn't do things right by Kyle Beach and John Doe. They kept Aldrich on, knowing what he did was unethical, to quote Quenneville, "A distraction."

Quenneville was not right because he didn't flat-out fire Aldrich, no matter the consequences. He kept him on, Aldrich got his name engraved on the Cup, got a day with the Cup, and Blackhawks, up to the very top, didn't give a damn about the people he hurt, so long as they had their first Cup in a long while.

 

[HTFN]

I keep asking, why are so many weirdos here thinking Quenneville is right. That it's a on ice advantage. It's so nonsensical

It's a video coach.. . Even if it was an assistant coach or something higher. It's not a competitive advantage. Just fire or suspsend the guy and release a NDA will not talk about it at the time. There's no distraction or complications here.

But they didn't do that, and there are quoted reports where the coach himself calls it a "distraction".

Do you think he would say that if it wasn't potentially going to impact players? There's no reason to think about it in that framework otherwise, so if they ignore it willingly it becomes a competitive... well, not advantage in the steroid sense, but at least an unethical prolonging of the status quo to make sure it's not a competitive disadvantage. That's splitting hairs at that point, frankly.

 

[The Expert]

Going to be interesting to see what the penalty will be this time. Given Celebrini or Eiserman on an ELC?

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

I know I'm just stating the obvious but what's so vile about this is this video coach held the keys to these guys' futures. Same with Frost and for that matter guys like Weinstein. There's not much that can be more evil than satisfying your sick sexual desires by exploiting the hopes and dreams of a kid. f*** I hate this stuff.

 

[dirtydanglez]

good. i hope they get a big settlement.

 

[potatowejj]

Regarding "competitive advantages", the players harassing Beach (allegedly) about being f***ing sexually assaulted should've been immediately dismissed from the team.

Also the "prevention of a distraction" in of itself is trying to not put the Blackhawks at a competitive disadvantage. I'm pretty sure a major investigation swirling around the team during a cup run is a disadvantage, but of course they elected to take the low road and opt for the much much worse option.

 

[Romang67]

My personal issue is that the Blues - and recently the Senators - have been punished with loss of first round draft picks for lesser crimes than what the Blackhawks had done, and that the Blackhawks had the equivalent of - like I mentioned in my first post - a naughty toddler getting a thirty-second timeout for misbehaving and right afterward, getting a cookie, ice cream, and a brand new toy.

Can you understand how frustrating that may seem to fans of other teams?

Absolutely. I'm not a Blackhawks fan. I just don't like the Bedard complaints because saying that they shouldn't have gotten Bedard sets such arbitrary standards (second 1st round draft pick after the scandal was revealed, and entirely dependent on the scandal being revealed in the near-ish time period before the 2023 NHL draft), and I don't like the draft pick punishments in general for the same reason.

I think most of the punishments people are looking for are either relatively meaningless for the organization, arbitrary, or impossible to use for future precedence.

However, the punishment that was actually doled out, a $2M fine and some fired higher-ups who weren't exactly doing a good job from a hockey perspective feels awfully insufficient as well. I just don't know what the solution is.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

'
And yet they did not fire or suspend Aldrich throughout that entire Cup run. They let him continue to assault Kyle Beach and John Doe. They didn't do things right by Kyle Beach and John Doe. They kept Aldrich on, knowing what he did was unethical, to quote Quenneville, "A distraction."

Quenneville was not right because he didn't flat-out fire Aldrich, no matter the consequences. He kept him on, Aldrich got his name engraved on the Cup, got a day with the Cup, and Blackhawks, up to the very top, didn't give a damn about the people he hurt, so long as they had their first Cup in a long while.

Oh the Blackhawks organization did so much more than that. In return for resigning quietly Aldrich got paid for months, a severance package, a bonus--I repeat, Aldrich got a bonus after the Beach allegations were known--and a Stanley Cup ring.

Skills coach Paul Vincent looks like the only one who has a soul in all of this. When Beach told him about Aldrich, Vincent went to management and urged them to contact the police.

Blackhawks accused of ‘institutional negligence’ as second former player launches suit | TSN

The Blackhawks are being accused in the lawsuit of six counts of negligence, including negligence related to hiring Aldrich and intentionally inflecting emotional distress on “John Doe.” Rick Westhead has more.

www.tsn.ca

 

[norrisnick]

Absolutely. I'm not a Blackhawks fan. I just don't like the Bedard complaints because saying that they shouldn't have gotten Bedard sets such arbitrary standards (second 1st round draft pick after the scandal was revealed, and entirely dependent on the scandal being revealed in the near-ish time period before the 2023 NHL draft), and I don't like the draft pick punishments in general for the same reason.

I think most of the punishments people are looking for are either relatively meaningless for the organization, arbitrary, or impossible to use for future precedence.

However, the punishment that was actually doled out, a $2M fine and some fired higher-ups who weren't exactly doing a good job from a hockey perspective feels awfully insufficient as well. I just don't know what the solution is.

How so? The league should have hammered the f*** out of the Blackhawks so no one would ever even consider for a moment covering up something like this again

Five 1sts, 5 years barred from the playoffs, a fine with actual teeth, and a cap penalty (upper limit gets recalculated league-wide so the players as a whole still get their share).

Yes, the management personnel that oversaw this shit show is all gone, but an ownership group needs to bear the responsibility of those acting on their behalf.

This was a "f*** around and find out" teaching moment. The Blackhawks f***ed around and nothing happened. This won't be the last such incident...

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

I know I'm just stating the obvious but what's so vile about this is this video coach held the keys to these guys' futures. Same with Frost and for that matter guys like Weinstein. There's not much that can be more evil than satisfying your sick sexual desires by exploiting the hopes and dreams of a kid. f*** I hate this stuff.

In the running for just as evil is multiple members of an organization letting a known sexual predator walk out the door so he could go on to sexually assault other people, including a 16 year-old kid.

 

[North Cole]

I keep asking, why are so many weirdos here thinking Quenneville is right. That it's a on ice advantage. It's so nonsensical

It's a video coach.. . Even if it was an assistant coach or something higher. It's not a competitive advantage. Just fire or suspsend the guy and release a NDA will not talk about it at the time. There's no distraction or complications here.

Because he is the NHL head coach? You can say it's an appeal to authority to use Quenneville's own words against him and thus determine you got a competitive advantage.

However, the alternative to appealing to authority is what? What is it being nonsensical based on, other than your own bias? Are you also an expert of what constitutes a distraction for an NHL locker-room, have you been a member of one, or are you a hockey executive that could offer some kind of counter credibility? The fact of the matter is he had more to gain from doing nothing and much more to lose by doing something, so he chose the former. It benefited himself, his players (excepting Beach), and the organization. If there was no incentive to delay and cover it up, he wouldn't have.

 

[TLEH]

Absolutely. I'm not a Blackhawks fan. I just don't like the Bedard complaints because saying that they shouldn't have gotten Bedard sets such arbitrary standards (second 1st round draft pick after the scandal was revealed, and entirely dependent on the scandal being revealed in the near-ish time period before the 2023 NHL draft), and I don't like the draft pick punishments in general for the same reason.

I think most of the punishments people are looking for are either relatively meaningless for the organization, arbitrary, or impossible to use for future precedence.

However, the punishment that was actually doled out, a $2M fine and some fired higher-ups who weren't exactly doing a good job from a hockey perspective feels awfully insufficient as well. I just don't know what the solution is.

Essentially.

 

[ClydeLee]

But they didn't do that, and there are quoted reports where the coach himself calls it a "distraction".

Do you think he would say that if it wasn't potentially going to impact players? There's no reason to think about it in that framework otherwise, so if they ignore it willingly it becomes a competitive... well, not advantage in the steroid sense, but at least an unethical prolonging of the status quo to make sure it's not a competitive disadvantage. That's splitting hairs at that point, frankly.

You are saying you believe that coach, who was Q, and think he was right? Because anytime someone says it would really be a distraction, it comes across as you mean you're saying. Q was right!

And not saying, Q was a jerk who was wrong. It wouldn't of been a distraction and removing Aldrich was the absolute right thing to do... because of not doing that, and denying it, that Q should never get another job in hockey.

Don't come across as slimy with these, well if the coach says it, it must be true vibes... that's shameful.

Because he is the NHL head coach? You can say it's an appeal to authority to use Quenneville's own words against him and thus determine you got a competitive advantage.

However, the alternative to appealing to authority is what? What is it being nonsensical based on, other than your own bias? Are you also an expert of what constitutes a distraction for an NHL locker-room, have you been a member of one, or are you a hockey executive that could offer some kind of counter credibility? The fact of the matter is he had more to gain from doing nothing and much more to lose by doing something, so he chose the former. It benefited himself, his players (excepting Beach), and the organization. If there was no incentive to delay and cover it up, he wouldn't have.

You should be able to 100% unequivocally say Q was absolutely wrong here. Not doing that, is bizarre.

 

[North Cole]

You are saying you believe that coach, who was Q, and think he was right? Because anytime someone says it would really be a distraction, it comes across as you mean you're saying. Q was right!

And not saying, Q was a jerk who was wrong. It wouldn't of been a distraction and removing Aldrich was the absolute right thing to do... because of not doing that, and denying it, that Q should never get another job in hockey.

Don't come across as slimy with these, well if the coach says it, it must be true vibes... that's shameful.


You should be able to 100% unequivocally say Q was absolutely wrong here. Not doing that, is bizarre.

I say 100% unequivocally that Q was absolutely wrong, in the way he chose to help cover up the situation in order to NOT disadvantage his team and organization.

 

[JS19]

I keep asking, why are so many weirdos here thinking Quenneville is right. That it's a on ice advantage. It's so nonsensical

It's a video coach.. . Even if it was an assistant coach or something higher. It's not a competitive advantage. Just fire or suspsend the guy and release a NDA will not talk about it at the time. There's no distraction or complications here.

This reads like you digging your head in the sand and refusing to listen to any obvious levels of common sense.

Your coach alone mentioned this event being a distraction.

So allow me to ask you this. Whether you choose to answer in good or bad faith is completely up to you: if the SA case was leaked, or publicized during the 2010 playoffs, would the Blackhawks still be Stanley Cup winners?

 

[norrisnick]

You are saying you believe that coach, who was Q, and think he was right? Because anytime someone says it would really be a distraction, it comes across as you mean you're saying. Q was right!

And not saying, Q was a jerk who was wrong. It wouldn't of been a distraction and removing Aldrich was the absolute right thing to do... because of not doing that, and denying it, that Q should never get another job in hockey.

Don't come across as slimy with these, well if the coach says it, it must be true vibes... that's shameful.


You should be able to 100% unequivocally say Q was absolutely wrong here. Not doing that, is bizarre.

Are you serious here? Acknowledging why something terrible was done is not agreeing that that terrible thing should have been done.

If Bob murdered Steve, because Steve was about to grab the last cupcake in the breakroom, and you state that Bob murdered Steve so he could have the last cupcake, doesn't mean you agree that Bob was right for murdering Steve so he could have the last cupcake. That's a nonsensical leap in reasoning that's disingenuous as all f***...

 

[North Cole]

This reads like you digging your head in the sand and refusing to listen to any obvious levels of common sense.

Your coach alone mentioned this event being a distraction.

So allow me to ask you this. Whether you choose to answer in good or bad faith is completely up to you: if the SA case was leaked, or publicized during the 2010 playoffs, would the Blackhawks still be Stanley Cup winners?

My assumption is some perverted logical fallacy - you can't agree with Q that it was a distraction because Q was a POS and by agreeing with him you clearly also a bad person. Despite your agreement of the distraction side of it having nothing to do with your opinion on the actual handling of the assault.

 

[JS19]

My assumption is some perverted logical fallacy - you can't agree with Q that it was a distraction because Q was a POS and by agreeing with him you clearly also a bad person. Despite your agreement of the distraction side of it having nothing to do with your opinion on the actual handling of the assault.

I mean this completely removes the nuance of what happened after the playoffs: 1) the pervert was "fired" after having his name on the Cup and celebration. And we have Westhead reporting that he still got great references and was able to coach at University. 2) Allegations followed the degenerate pervert whereever he went post-Blackhawks stint.

So either way, it's a failure on both Quenneville's part and the degenerate.



(1:50-onwards has the details of the initial 2 lawsuits from 2021, including John Doe II and what he alleged)

 

[SRHRangers]

Not disclosing the abuse was absolutely a competitive advantage. It's killing me that some people can't admit that.

Imagine playing poker against a guy called Stan who hid an ace up his sleeve the whole time. Let's say you kept losing, and Stan only admitted it at the end. The casino says that's a $50 fine and Stan can't come back until tomorrow night. Oh, well, Stan never played the ace so it wasn't a competitive disadvantage? Oh, well, it's my fault for not playing better and catching the cheating! Oh, well, he seems like a cool guy, because when a major NHL market thrives, the whole league thrives, so don't let's worry about any "victims" here!

The difference is that "Stan" would've been taken outside and gotten the living shit beaten out of him by whoever he cheated, and most likely, the casino.

I wish someone broke Quinville's and crews jaws for covering this shit up.

 

[Davimir Tarablad]

And i generally agree with that. Teams avoid competitive disadvantages in a thousand different ways. It’s why they play their best players the most minutes and don’t play their goalies on the wing. As you said, avoiding these disadvantages aren’t an unfair advantage relative to the other teams.

So a team covering up sexual abuse with a team giving their best players the most minutes is the same thing?

Jesus Christ dude

 

[ClydeLee]

This reads like you digging your head in the sand and refusing to listen to any obvious levels of common sense.

Your coach alone mentioned this event being a distraction.

So allow me to ask you this. Whether you choose to answer in good or bad faith is completely up to you: if the SA case was leaked, or publicized during the 2010 playoffs, would the Blackhawks still be Stanley Cup winners?

It's may be an impossible answer you couldn't know. But you should not say conclude because Q felt it would be, it would be. That's nonsensical.

Brent Sopel said he felt like everyone knew it was a hushed secret, is that not a distraction?

 

[hawksrule]

So a team covering up sexual abuse with a team giving their best players the most minutes is the same thing?

Jesus Christ dude

Didn’t say that. But different things on the opposite spectrum of morality can have in common that they don’t provide competitive advantages.

 

[ClydeLee]

Are you serious here? Acknowledging why something terrible was done is not agreeing that that terrible thing should have been done.

If Bob murdered Steve, because Steve was about to grab the last cupcake in the breakroom, and you state that Bob murdered Steve so he could have the last cupcake, doesn't mean you agree that Bob was right for murdering Steve so he could have the last cupcake. That's a nonsensical leap in reasoning that's disingenuous as all f***...

People are not just saying Q thought that. They're saying they believe there was a competetive advantage by proof of authority, that Q said it would be a distraction.

Which would mean Q is right. Which is scummy to argue some weird the Blackhawks should be punished draftwise point.

Peope on here are saying the equivalent of Bob was right. They're not just saying Bob thought that. They're saying Bob thinking it proves it so.

 

[Crosby2010]

Maybe this is an old fashioned way of looking at it, but whatever happened to the days when a man would risk getting punched in the nose for coming onto and threatening a guy like this? I guess 20 year olds were different in 2010 or whatever, but there is no way if I am Beach of John Doe that if anyone tried that crap with me that they end up with less than a bloody nose.