Bobby Hull legacy thread (see admin warning post #1)

[Voight]

Patrick Kane's 2012 bender: Reconstructing Patrick Kane's Drunken Weekend In Madison, With Eyewitness Testimony

Dozens of people witnessed Kane choking out a college woman at a frat party (that he didn't even know), then witnessed him assaulting other people in a drunken bender.

Rape is one of the hardest cries to prosecute. There are several starting NFL Quarterbacks that would be in prison right now, if it was easier to get a conviction. Whether we like to admit it or not, money buys justice in America. Hell, Ben Roethlisberger was a serial rapist, yet he remained virtually unpunished throughout his NFL career.

Despite what a member posted about things being "different" today, as opposed to when Bobby Hull played in the 60s/70s, this is obviously incorrect. In fact, an argument can be made that players today are far more likely to get away with criminal behaviour than 50 years ago, considering how much money is invested into pro sports today, as opposed to half a century ago

I love how the same people who literally want to burn Bully Hull at the stake, are going through hoops trying to defend current NHL players transgressions.

PS...It's interesting how you minimise beating up an innocent 62 year old cab driver, by placing the word "bad" in quotation marks.

Cool. So no actual evidence. Lets not act like deadspin is a super reliable source either. They are a glorify sports version of the National Inquirer.

& I don't disagree RE rape prosecutions. But in the 2015 case, there was literally no credible evidence and the victims mother even started a hoax saying someone had tampered with evidence.

 

[Jets4Life]

Cool. So no actual evidence. Lets not act like deadspin is a super reliable source either. They are a glorify sports version of the National Inquirer.

& I don't disagree RE rape prosecutions. But in the 2015 case, there was literally no credible evidence and the victims mother even started a hoax saying someone had tampered with evidence.

Perhaps you are right, and I am being unfair to Patrick Kane. Looks like he has settled down, married, and seems to be doing alright for himself. My apologies.

 

[The Panther]

That CBC video someone linked got me thinking again about the issue I raised earlier in the thread (which no one seems to want to talk about in a pointless back-and-forth about how bad or not Bobby Hull was as a person): To what extent SHOULD we celebrate athletes for their athletic contributions alone and to what extent should we consider their personal (non-athletic) lives? Does this depend on the context, perhaps?

Like, in the Jets' on-ice tribute to Hull, shortly after his death, would it be more appropriate for the announcer to talk about Hull's on-ice and career achievements and then, add, at the end: "We must also remember that Hull had alleged domestic-abuse issues and may have made racist offhand comments to a Russian media source. Three of his marriages failed, and his Hall-of-Fame son, Brett, disowned him for years until necessity brought them back together for the cameras. Hull also enjoyed off-color fart jokes and had questionable taste in neckties."

I'm being flippant here, but I'm suggesting that maybe there is a time and a place for a sports-only memoriam to an athlete and maybe there is a time and place for a more nuanced and broad-ranging memoriam that includes the non-athletic stuff.

I'm not sure, but maybe the few days after his death is not the time to be bringing up the domestic stuff in the context of sports events?

Or, do we think this kind of stuff should be talked about from the loudspeaker at a hockey game, a day or two after his death?

I don't know. It's a complex thing, obviously.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I'm being flippant here, but I'm suggesting that maybe there is a time and a place for a sports-only memoriam to an athlete and maybe there is a time and place for a more nuanced and broad-ranging memoriam that includes the non-athletic stuff.

I'm not sure, but maybe the few days after his death is not the time to be bringing up the domestic stuff in the context of sports events?

We gave a day on the main board for a "cleaner" discussion. We directed people here at this time.

You may find this all in the first post of this thread. We will not be re-litigating that decision. We don't require your opinion on whether we're handling it properly.

 

[jcs0218]

I also want to mention, I think it's fair to say Bobby Hull's domestic abuse, especially among active users in HOH, has been common knowledge for a long time.

Yet before his death, there were countless threads about him relating exclusively to his on ice contributions. So I don't think it's that anyone here is disregarding what he's done for hockey.

But in a thread about his legacy, expect his off ice actions to be discussed and at the forefront because for many people, how you treat others leaves a more lasting impression than how good you were at a game.

My Dad, who grew up watching hockey in the Original Six era, told me about 30 years ago when I was a young kid: "I don't have any respect for Bobby Hull because he is a wife-beater".

So Bobby's off-ice behaviour definitely has been known for a long time.

 

[daver]

That CBC video someone linked got me thinking again about the issue I raised earlier in the thread (which no one seems to want to talk about in a pointless back-and-forth about how bad or not Bobby Hull was as a person): To what extent SHOULD we celebrate athletes for their athletic contributions alone and to what extent should we consider their personal (non-athletic) lives? Does this depend on the context, perhaps?

I would say that "we" have the answer from this thread. "You" (not you specifically) can choose to celebrate in whatever context fits best for "you". A celebration =/= dismissal or acceptance of off-ice behaviors or unfeeling/inappropriate attention

If someone has an issue with how the league, the team, the media etc... chooses to celebrate an athlete then "you" can choose to take issue with them.

Just because "we" can come to an anonymous online discussion board and share our choice of celebration/consideration, doesn't mean "you" get to set the moral compass for the "we". The idea that a moral compass should be set by anonymous online posters has not moved from the ridiculous despite the decreasing amount of people who understand what that actually means.

It is not surprising to hear that Hull's off-ice life dampens some or most or everyone's appreciation of his hockey legacy. As has been pointed out, "we" have no idea what truly happened in his personal life from 50 years ago to the days before he passed away and never will.

 

[Jets4Life]

Just because "we" can come to an anonymous online discussion board and share our choice of celebration/consideration, doesn't mean "you" get to set the moral compass for the "we". The idea that a moral compass should be set by anonymous online posters has not moved from the ridiculous despite the decreasing amount of people who understand what that actually means.

Speaking of ridiculous, it was not enough to just let facts speak for themselves. We know that Bobby Hull was accused, and probably committed domestic violence against at least a couple of his ex-wives.

We know that Bobby Hull was charged and convicted of assault on a Police Officer in 1986, after responding to a domestic dispute outside Hull's residence.

We know that a Russian newspaper interviewed Hull in 1998, where Hull said things sympathetic to Hitler, and claimed there are too many Blacks in the United States.

However, that does not seem to be enough to fit the "Bobby Hull is a monster" narrative.

Facts have to be invented.

A poster alleged that "Bobby Hull attempted to murder his wife." Without any kind of proof to substantiate that claim. When I pressed for proof, the OP gave a link to a CBC article that says absolutely nothing about Bobby Hull attempting to kill anyone.

Did Bobby Hull threaten his wife over a balcony? It's definitely possible

Was his ex-wife afraid for her life? That too is definitely possible.

Did Bobby Hull attempt to murder his wife? There is no proof whatsoever of this.

However, since I am pointing out facts, I am supposedly "deflecting" or whatever that means.

Never let facts get in the way of a spicy narrative, I suppose...

 

[DaaaaB's]

That CBC video someone linked got me thinking again about the issue I raised earlier in the thread (which no one seems to want to talk about in a pointless back-and-forth about how bad or not Bobby Hull was as a person): To what extent SHOULD we celebrate athletes for their athletic contributions alone and to what extent should we consider their personal (non-athletic) lives? Does this depend on the context, perhaps?

Like, in the Jets' on-ice tribute to Hull, shortly after his death, would it be more appropriate for the announcer to talk about Hull's on-ice and career achievements and then, add, at the end: "We must also remember that Hull had alleged domestic-abuse issues and may have made racist offhand comments to a Russian media source. Three of his marriages failed, and his Hall-of-Fame son, Brett, disowned him for years until necessity brought them back together for the cameras. Hull also enjoyed off-color fart jokes and had questionable taste in neckties."

I'm being flippant here, but I'm suggesting that maybe there is a time and a place for a sports-only memoriam to an athlete and maybe there is a time and place for a more nuanced and broad-ranging memoriam that includes the non-athletic stuff.

I'm not sure, but maybe the few days after his death is not the time to be bringing up the domestic stuff in the context of sports events?

Or, do we think this kind of stuff should be talked about from the loudspeaker at a hockey game, a day or two after his death?

I don't know. It's a complex thing, obviously.

It's not being talked about because it's only you and two others who can't seperate his hockey career from his personal life. That situation you described is ridiculous, would never happen and no one in here would want that to happen. It's really not that complex.

 

[DaaaaB's]

It is not surprising to hear that Hull's off-ice life dampens some or most or everyone's appreciation of his hockey legacy. As has been pointed out, "we" have no idea what truly happened in his personal life from 50 years ago to the days before he passed away and never will.

No one in here has said his off-ice life dampens his hockey legacy. Also, we have a pretty good idea of what happened in his personal life.

 

[tfong]

It's not being talked about because it's only you and two others who can't seperate his hockey career from his personal life. That situation you described is ridiculous, would never happen and no one in here would want that to happen. It's really not that complex.

Somewhat late to this is I think in terms of using Hull as a role model or uplifting him as an icon or ambassador means we take into account the person he was in additional to what he contributed to hockey. The reason I say it this way is the same as how I've had to explain in other circumstances is that, in hockey in its prior generations (and still to this day) is mired in alot of shady behind the scenes things like abuse, addition and various other vices that we typically sweep under the rug all in the name of "stick to hockey" type view of the sport. I think going about this way has essentially been why there is such a negative underbelly to the sporting world, and that is we simply just try and forget or isolate things like this away from the sport. In terms of trying to deal with things like racism and bullying and domestic violence, I think the culture moving forward needs to take into account the players we use as role models and mabassadors driving the game forward. Not only should they be good for the sport, but they should be in essence, good for the culture.

I'll never deny that Hull is one of the all time greats, but I will choose to not mourn him because I just can't agree with the type of person he is/was/perceived as. I think if you become an icon of a sport or a role model, it should not lessen or give you a free pass to abuse others.

 

[The Panther]

It's not being talked about because it's only you and two others who can't seperate his hockey career from his personal life. That situation you described is ridiculous, would never happen and no one in here would want that to happen. It's really not that complex.

What make you express this (completely incorrect) opinion that I can't separate his hockey career from his personal life?

Somewhat late to this is I think in terms of using Hull as a role model or uplifting him as an icon or ambassador means we take into account the person he was in additional to what he contributed to hockey. The reason I say it this way is the same as how I've had to explain in other circumstances is that, in hockey in its prior generations (and still to this day) is mired in alot of shady behind the scenes things like abuse, addition and various other vices that we typically sweep under the rug all in the name of "stick to hockey" type view of the sport. I think going about this way has essentially been why there is such a negative underbelly to the sporting world, and that is we simply just try and forget or isolate things like this away from the sport. In terms of trying to deal with things like racism and bullying and domestic violence, I think the culture moving forward needs to take into account the players we use as role models and mabassadors driving the game forward. Not only should they be good for the sport, but they should be in essence, good for the culture.

I'll never deny that Hull is one of the all time greats, but I will choose to not mourn him because I just can't agree with the type of person he is/was/perceived as. I think if you become an icon of a sport or a role model, it should not lessen or give you a free pass to abuse others.=

What do you think about the on-ice tributes at Winnipeg / Chicago? Should there be any acknowledgement of Hull's personal issues in the context of such events?

 

[DaaaaB's]

What make you express this (completely incorrect) opinion that I can't separate his hockey career from his personal life?

The post I quoted with your scenario about the on ice tribute.

 

[quietbruinfan]

My Dad, who grew up watching hockey in the Original Six era, told me about 30 years ago when I was a young kid: "I don't have any respect for Bobby Hull because he is a wife-beater".

So Bobby's off-ice behaviour definitely has been known for a long time.

My Dad also did not like Hull. When I asked him about it, it never got beyond the Bruins never had trouble beating him. However, I always got the feeling there was a deep disrespect there. That was unusual for him, as he generally acknowledged great players as great players, even Cournoyer and Gainey.

 

[Big Phil]

Your responses are really disappointing. I mean, seriously disappointing, especially for a poster like myself, and likely many others, who have respected you and your content for years.

How you’re manipulating the tone and content of this thread is upsetting. The only thing that 99% of all the posters are saying in this thread is that Bobby was both a legendary hockey player and a documented serial abuser, and both of these things are valid. You say you’re not downplaying his history of abuse, but every chance you get you do just that, as you said above.

This man was not a product of the times. I know enough people who were alive in the 1980’s who didn’t beat their wives with shoes and attempt to murder them by nearly throwing them over a balcony.

Food for thought. If Bobby was 27, playing today and these exact same instances came to light, he would never play another NHL game again and it would have been well deserved.

Really, really disappointing, Phil.

The Evander Kane comparison is pretty good. At least that is just the things we know about right now. Hull had things come out after his career was over. Did his wife press charges back in the 1960s over him? Once his career is over (Kane) there could be more about him. Now, does he deserve another shot? Well, they are giving him one, and so far so good in Edmonton.

Rick Tocchet, while a totally different topic, I have no idea how he keeps getting jobs all of the time after his gambling ring was exposed in 2006. We don't need to get into the inconsistencies with other athletes that have been caught gambling, we know them already, but what caused Tocchet to be allowed back into the game? And so soon after 2006 as well. Who knows, but I'm going to "gamble" and say there were some influential people involved in that ring that were a part of the NHL whose names were never released. It could be as easy as that.

It is the lopsidedness of this whole thing. Honestly, 17 pages and how much has actually been talked about his legend on the ice? Is there anyone here who really thinks spousal abuse is okay? I haven't read it on here. But honestly, there is a lot more to Hull - believe it or not - than his private life.

 

[Big Phil]

I am going to say his impact with the WHA is probably the reason Winnipeg got an NHL team, and still has one. I am not sure if the NHL ever expands to Winnipeg without Hull in the mix. That was a huge name bolting from the NHL. Derek Sanderson was a popular name, but he wasn't Bobby Hull. That was like when CCR decided to play in Woodstock in 1969 a lot of bands decided to follow. This was the sort of impact Hull had. Player salaries went up, and they actually weren't poor anymore. Cities got exposure, and there were people that made a ton of money from the WHA. Edmonton probably doesn't have an NHL team before 1979 without it.

 

[Sanf]

The Evander Kane comparison is pretty good. At least that is just the things we know about right now. Hull had things come out after his career was over. Did his wife press charges back in the 1960s over him? Once his career is over (Kane) there could be more about him. Now, does he deserve another shot? Well, they are giving him one, and so far so good in Edmonton.

First mentioning I found in newspapers about this was in 1970 when Joanne Hull first time filed divorce.

13. November 1970 The Buffalo Enquirer
Joanne Hull, wife of Chicago Black Hawk hockey star Bobby Hull, charged "physical cruelty" in divorce proceedings filed Thursday.
...
Mrs. Hull, 35, charged that her husband kicked her in 1966, slammed a door into her face in 1969, punched her in the mouth and threw her off an elevated porch last July, and again kicked her last month...

 

[Big Phil]

First mentioning I found in newspapers about this was in 1970 when Joanne Hull first time filed divorce.

13. November 1970 The Buffalo Enquirer
Joanne Hull, wife of Chicago Black Hawk hockey star Bobby Hull, charged "physical cruelty" in divorce proceedings filed Thursday.
...
Mrs. Hull, 35, charged that her husband kicked her in 1966, slammed a door into her face in 1969, punched her in the mouth and threw her off an elevated porch last July, and again kicked her last month...

So 1970. Well, we tend to think that 53 years ago was the same sort of access to the news that we see today. It obviously wasn't. I can't say I know how widespread the divorce of Hull would have been then, as I wasn't around to see it, but I am guessing it didn't make headlines. What year did they actually divorce? Because she was standing right next to him in 1972 when he had that big cheque from the Jets. It seems she stayed with him until 1980

This is the thing with Hull, his private life was quite private. He and Deborah never got a divorce for whatever reason. I don't know why that is the case. Were they still together? Separated? What happened after 1986? These things I can't say I know.

 

[The Panther]

The post I quoted with your scenario about the on ice tribute.

Okay, well just to clarify it then -- I have absolutely no problem personally separating Hull's (or anyone's) personal lives from their hockey careers.

Let's take Wayne Gretzky as an example: I think most on here know that I liked him as a player and that I am almost studious about his history as a NHL-er. However, do I feel that I "like" Gretzky on a personal level? Not really. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get along with him (for example, I find his politics abhorrent and his crony-ism distasteful).

The issue I keep raising here isn't whether we as individuals on a message board can separate Hull's private life from his hockey career, but whether the hockey culture at large can. Or should. I'm not sure about it, myself, which is why I find it interesting.

The world of baseball wrestled with this issue with Ty Cobb, on and off, for years, right? Back in the 1940s or whenever the Hall of Fame started, basically nobody of authority (mainly wealthy white men) cared a whit about athletes' treatment of minorities or thought anything to do with it was even worthy of note.

After the 1960s' social changes, this became an issue with some of the people of authority. Some people started claiming that Cobb was an embarrassment to baseball and that the Hall shouldn't celebrate him.

More recently, we've had (if I understand this correctly) newer studies of Cobb that challenge the notion of him as an outspoken racist and complicate the narrative of the past forty years, etc., etc.

Anyway, it becomes a question of whether the personal stuff has a place in sports' legacies. And even if we agreed that it does have a place (which there will never be widespread agreement on), then who will decide what is okay and isn't okay, and who still gets celebrated and who doesn't? Gary Bettman?

To clarify: I am NOT talking about the public discussion of an athlete on the TV news or in biographies or internet chat forums. Obviously, in such forums, all aspects of the athlete's legacy are fair-game. I am just asking about in the sports' contexts (on-ice tributes, Hall of Fame status, etc.).

 

[Sanf]

So 1970. Well, we tend to think that 53 years ago was the same sort of access to the news that we see today. It obviously wasn't. I can't say I know how widespread the divorce of Hull would have been then, as I wasn't around to see it, but I am guessing it didn't make headlines. What year did they actually divorce? Because she was standing right next to him in 1972 when he had that big cheque from the Jets. So summer of 1972 I assume they were still together?

It was AP and UPI news printed all over papers. Granted it wasn´t any kind of main headline, but if you read papers back in the day especially sports you most likely knew it.

It seems that in 1977 they seperated when she filed divorce second time it became ongoing process until they finally got divorce in 1980.

I´m not going to post about this more. Just to point out this was spoked and written in 70´s already.

 

[Big Phil]

The world of baseball wrestled with this issue with Ty Cobb, on and off, for years, right? Back in the 1940s or whenever the Hall of Fame started, basically nobody of authority (mainly wealthy white men) cared a whit about athletes' treatment of minorities or thought anything to do with it was even worthy of note.

After the 1960s' social changes, this became an issue with some of the people of authority. Some people started claiming that Cobb was an embarrassment to baseball and that the Hall shouldn't celebrate him.

More recently, we've had (if I understand this correctly) newer studies of Cobb that challenge the notion of him as an outspoken racist and complicate the narrative of the past forty years, etc., etc.

I brought this up for what it is worth, but Ty Cobb's legacy - or the one we had heard about - was largely built on someone who had an axe to grind with him. Over the years a lot has been debunked about the things we thought about Ty Cobb, the person. So I do try to say to people on here - again, for what it is worth - that we always think we know the player off the field/ice but there have been times when we base it off of a lot of media lies and exaggerations. Mistruths for one.

An example that I have noticed in the last week just keeps getting replayed over and over again is Tom Brady and the fact that he sacrificed his marriage for another season in the NFL. Megyn Kelly had a long winded rant about this recently as if he and Gisele were living like June and Ward Cleaver in a perfect marriage before he decided to come back in 2022. Obviously anyone who has been married knows full well that the marriage didn't hang on the fact of whether or not Brady came back for another season. Obviously things were likely dead before that. But you wouldn't know that from reading what every nosy sports columnist writes about it.

 

[MasterofGrond]

The thing that killed Brady's marriage was him losing a ton of her money in crypto.

But that's besides the point because it's a wildly incomparable situation between "divorce cause" and "documented history of domestic violence"

 

[DaaaaB's]

Okay, well just to clarify it then -- I have absolutely no problem personally separating Hull's (or anyone's) personal lives from their hockey careers.

Let's take Wayne Gretzky as an example: I think most on here know that I liked him as a player and that I am almost studious about his history as a NHL-er. However, do I feel that I "like" Gretzky on a personal level? Not really. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get along with him (for example, I find his politics abhorrent and his crony-ism distasteful).

The issue I keep raising here isn't whether we as individuals on a message board can separate Hull's private life from his hockey career, but whether the hockey culture at large can. Or should. I'm not sure about it, myself, which is why I find it interesting.

The world of baseball wrestled with this issue with Ty Cobb, on and off, for years, right? Back in the 1940s or whenever the Hall of Fame started, basically nobody of authority (mainly wealthy white men) cared a whit about athletes' treatment of minorities or thought anything to do with it was even worthy of note.

After the 1960s' social changes, this became an issue with some of the people of authority. Some people started claiming that Cobb was an embarrassment to baseball and that the Hall shouldn't celebrate him.

More recently, we've had (if I understand this correctly) newer studies of Cobb that challenge the notion of him as an outspoken racist and complicate the narrative of the past forty years, etc., etc.

Anyway, it becomes a question of whether the personal stuff has a place in sports' legacies. And even if we agreed that it does have a place (which there will never be widespread agreement on), then who will decide what is okay and isn't okay, and who still gets celebrated and who doesn't? Gary Bettman?

To clarify: I am NOT talking about the public discussion of an athlete on the TV news or in biographies or internet chat forums. Obviously, in such forums, all aspects of the athlete's legacy are fair-game. I am just asking about in the sports' contexts (on-ice tributes, Hall of Fame status, etc.).

Ok, my apologies for misunderstanding what you meant. You definitely raise a good point here but I don't really know what the answer is. It is quite complex, like you said earlier.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

The "Hitler had good ideas" thing was debunked as fake news like 15 years ago as far as I recall. Why the hell would some Russian newspaper be asking a retired Canadian hockey player what he thought about Hitler? Mainstream sports media continuing to report it as fact is sad, but unsurprising.

Was never debunked. The case never went to trial. One publication changed a few things on their story and that was about it. He originally put up some big show about how he was going to sue and take them to the cleaners.

We don't know what Hull's family thinks of him at the time of his passing, outside of the tweet from his grandson, that is critical of members of the public that were pretty much trashing him in the immediate aftermath of his death.

A bigger question is why is it any of our business, as to the personal relationship with Hull and his immediate family.

It's not. But people like you and Phil keep trying to claim that he's not what people are saying he is. So, the burden is on you, now. I get that having the burden isn't fun. It means you actually have to do work to debunk claims, etc. I get that. But since we are not members of the Hull family, we cannot go and get them on the record.

So if you want to defend his honor or whatever it is you are doing, that's on you, now.

The irony is you seem to care more about his legacy than he did. If he was worried about clearing his name as a wife beater, he could've done the PR work the last decade or so. That, to me, speaks volumes. Far more than anything you or Phil have done in this thread.

 

[Walkingthroughforest]

The Evander Kane comparison is pretty good. At least that is just the things we know about right now. Hull had things come out after his career was over. Did his wife press charges back in the 1960s over him? Once his career is over (Kane) there could be more about him. Now, does he deserve another shot? Well, they are giving him one, and so far so good in Edmonton.

Rick Tocchet, while a totally different topic, I have no idea how he keeps getting jobs all of the time after his gambling ring was exposed in 2006. We don't need to get into the inconsistencies with other athletes that have been caught gambling, we know them already, but what caused Tocchet to be allowed back into the game? And so soon after 2006 as well. Who knows, but I'm going to "gamble" and say there were some influential people involved in that ring that were a part of the NHL whose names were never released. It could be as easy as that.

It is the lopsidedness of this whole thing. Honestly, 17 pages and how much has actually been talked about his legend on the ice? Is there anyone here who really thinks spousal abuse is okay? I haven't read it on here. But honestly, there is a lot more to Hull - believe it or not - than his private life.

I dont' know why you're trying to change the scenario I laid out. I didn't leave any ambiguity. This is if Joanne and the kids came forward in present day while he was 27 and laid out all the abuse, including the shoe and balcony incident.

If you're going to compare anyone, it shouldn't be Kane, it should be Voynov. Kane has enough murkiness around these situations that he's been able to navigate out of them. Voynov was cut and dry from a single known instance that expelled him from the league.

And to be clear, the reason why this thread is being bogged down in this discussion is because posters such as yourself and a few others keep pushing back and dismissing this part of his life. I would bet that there would be a lot more discussion around his hockey career if there weren't people coming and and trying to whitewash his abusive past.

 

[Big Phil]

I dont' know why you're trying to change the scenario I laid out. I didn't leave any ambiguity. This is if Joanne and the kids came forward in present day while he was 27 and laid out all the abuse, including the shoe and balcony incident.

If you're going to compare anyone, it shouldn't be Kane, it should be Voynov. Kane has enough murkiness around these situations that he's been able to navigate out of them. Voynov was cut and dry from a single known instance that expelled him from the league.

And to be clear, the reason why this thread is being bogged down in this discussion is because posters such as yourself and a few others keep pushing back and dismissing this part of his life. I would bet that there would be a lot more discussion around his hockey career if there weren't people coming and and trying to whitewash his abusive past.

I don't think the things he was accused of were good. They sounded horrendous. I do find there are those that don't even attempt to look at the other side of it. She stayed with him for 14 years after the balcony incident. Why? That's perplexing to me. And you know what? It is not any of my business either. Because I sure as heck don't know the whole story and this wasn't tested in court. I'm that annoying "innocent until proven guilty" guy that used to be common back in the day. So here is the thing, Hull's life outside of hockey in his private life seemed very complicating. His hockey career? Not so. Actually I'd rather fill 20 pages about that. I mean it is a dead horse beaten over and over here. There doesn't seem to be any balance here. Almost 20 pages and barely mentioning his playing career? Wake me up when we actually talk about Hull the player. I think we've heard enough about Hull the husband by now. These aren't new stories that just popped up by any means. We've heard them before.