No, you're reaching here.
The NHL is notoriously cautious when it comes to its players, by which I mean they will give the players the benefit of the doubt in most cases. They briefly made some mention of an investigation into Evander Kane and concluded, as did the police, that there wasn't enough there to pursue.
It's blatantly obvious that the justice system in the US and Canada tends to be pretty lenient with people with money and power. This probably explains away why Hull, Kane, and others never have faced criminal proceedings for their bad misdeeds. You can't possibly come to the conclusion that it would be the same for someone going up against the same accusations with limited means.
This is even more evident in other pro leagues. The NFL is notorious for sweeping things under the rug, when star athletes engage is criminal activity, especially things such as sexual assault and domestic violence.
Every incident will be treated separately. Trying to argue that because Patrick Kane got into a scuffle with a cabbie, that that is somehow the same as Bobby Hull beating his wife bloody with the metal heel of a shoe, and holding her over a balcony so that she thought he was going to kill her, I mean, c'mon. Not every crime gets the death penalty. Some are more serious than others. And yes, the league will react more strongly if there are multiple incidents/witnesses/victims of a similar nature, because one person complaining carries some weight, but multiple persons complaining about similar incidents is by an order of magnitude more compelling.
There has been several allegations, even links in this thread in regards to far worse behaviour with Kane. Which goes back to my prior sentence. Kane got away with it, since he is a star athlete, making $10 million/season. People like you and I would be looking at prison terms if we were to have done the same. If anything, the Voynov situation seems to be the exception to the rule, in professional sports.
Moreover, the league does take certain steps to give players chances/time to either redeem themselves or show that they've changed, which is reasonable. Had these incidents happened or had been reported now, Hull would certainly have been taken out of active duty until he had a chance to either clear his name, take responsibility for his actions or make some kind of amends. Near as I can tell, he has never displayed much in terms of remorse for this, even after the club finally and publicly removed him from their ambassador program.
I've raised that point before. I'm a big fan of redemption and especially giving people second chances. In spite of Evander Kane's numerous transgressions during his lifetime, I can honestly state that I am rooting for him to make positive changes in his life. So far it seems he has done well in Edmonton. Perhaps it was a wake up call. People have the tendency to wait until they nearly hit rock bottom to change. With the COVID suspension, the bankruptcy problems, and the bitter custody battle with he ex, perhaps Kane finally admitted to ahving some off ice problems, gets help, and becomes a better person.
It's the last point I'm focused on, reminded as I am that this is a thread about his legacy. Yes, people do bad things. Like our own Jiminy Cricket, we have a voice in the back of our head saying 'this was not good and I should feel bad about that.' For Bobby Hull to hit his mid-80s, having done some of the things we've been talking about, and not at least privately saying 'I regret that' at least, that is now part of his legacy. And again, because the range between 'good' and 'bad' is a spectrum, saying that kind of thing privately is pretty good, but saying it publicly is a lot better. Unless someone can point me to it, I'm not aware he's done anything public to indicate that he accepts that what he did was bad.
We don't know that Hull did or did not feel remorse later in life. 1986 is the last noted instance of domestic violence Hull was involved in. Incidentally, this is the only time he actually was in trouble with the law, so perhaps it was a wake up call for Hull. If anything, it should have been dealt with sooner. I know for a fact that Winnipeg Police had dealt with domestic disturbances with Hull and his ex-wife in the late 70s, although I am not sure why anything was done at the time. Most people on this forum were not even born in 1986. Hull had nearly 37 years from that time, until when he passed.
However, the thread is dominated with 95% comments about his off-ice problems. Considering this is a hockey forum, and the title of the thread is Bobby Hull's legacy, we can't just pretend that his time in professional hockey should be whitewashed, and not spoken about.
Despite his off ice misgivings, Bobby Hull was more of the most prolific goal scorers in hockey history. He came to the Blackhawks, who were a struggling team, and led them to their first Stanley Cup in decades. He also was a huge draw at the box office, and from all accounts, always had time for his fans, especially children.
When Hull signed with the WHA, it was a defining moment in hockey history, as it gave the new league recognition, and helped tripe the average salary for professional hockey players in the 70s. It paved the way for many other NHL stars to sign with the new league, and the end result was more opportunity for the games and it's athletes, and better working conditions and bargaining power.
Bobby, from all accounts was great with the fans, was involved with the community, and did numerous work for charitable causes in Manitoba in the 70s. Hull also was a big proponent of European hockey players coming to North America, and developed life long friendships with Ulf Nilsson and Anders Hedberg, and took them under his wing during their first couple of seasons away from Sweden.
Like him or hate him, Bobby Hull will always have a lasting legacy on the sport of hockey.
