When the problem of Ruzicka vs Palascak began, Lener, a politician and former coach Bukac, spoke at one of the discussion meetings. When asked if there is corruption in Czech hockey, Lener first answered. According to him, not and if so, in small quantities and it is an individual. Bukac was the second to answer, saying that corruption exists, of course, and affects a large part of the club, coaches, parents ... just all the people involved in hockey. But why does one deny corruption and the other say it exists? Because Lener was a long-term employee of the federation, so he will deny that corruption existed, he even said he made an anti-corruption hotline where anyone could call ...
On the other side stood Bukac, who had no official job at the time, no one paid him, and could speak openly about the subject. And here you see who is answering an unpleasant topic. Bukac was completely independent of hockey, so he could describe the situation as it is without having to worry about his place or his reputation. Ruzicka was supposed to end up in hockey after the video with Palascak appeared in the media. If there were people in the union for whom corruption is like a red card and something that is unacceptable, Ruzicka would never have any role in hockey. Unfortunately, this man just withdrew from the extra league but still worked as a coach. And today he is a coach in the extralize ...
When hockey can no longer help itself, sponsors were to appear in the Ruzicka case and demand an end. And if corruption were to occur again, they would reduce financial support for hockey. But none of that happened, most people from that time continued to work in hockey, which is absurd. What signal is there when a coach takes bribes?