Doug Gilmour - Babysitter case
- Thread starter Danny46
- Start date
-
We sincerely apologize for the extended downtime. Our hosting provider, XenForo Cloud, encountered a major issue with their backup system, which unfortunately resulted in the loss of some critical data from the past year.
What This Means for You:
- If you created an account after March 2024, it no longer exists. You will need to sign up again to access the forum.
- If you registered before March 2024 but changed your email, username, or password in the past year, those changes were lost. You’ll need to update your account details manually once you're logged in.
- Threads and posts created within the last year have been restored.
- Our 2025 light and dark themes were lost, so we are rebuilding them. Light theme is currently available, but work in progress
Our team is working with Xenforo Cloud to recover data using backups, sitemaps, and other available resources. We know this is frustrating, and we deeply regret the impact on our community. We are taking steps with Xenforo Cloud to ensure this never happens again. This is work in progress. Thank you for your patience and support as we work through this.
In the meantime, feel free to join our Discord Server
The girl was 13 at the time of the alleged affair.
It was quite well known at the time, and Gilmour was heckled by opposition fans many times during his first season in Calgary. But it died out fairly quickly, and was largely forgotten by the time he was traded to the Leafs.
No, I doubt it had anything to do with his Hall of Fame induction.
It was quite well known at the time, and Gilmour was heckled by opposition fans many times during his first season in Calgary. But it died out fairly quickly, and was largely forgotten by the time he was traded to the Leafs.
No, I doubt it had anything to do with his Hall of Fame induction.
frisco
Some people claim that there's a woman to blame...
I know the Blues themselves were named in the civil lawsuit and were pretty eager to get Gilmour out of town. They got Mike Bullard from Calgary which was thought as a decent return considering the circumstances. Bullard wasn't a good fit and they dealt him Peter Zezel who had a few good years.
My Best-Carey
My Best-Carey
Last edited:
Affair---so THAT'S what they call a grown man having relations with a girl 5 years shy of being legal.
There was no evidence or credible accusations for a grand jury to even indict him for it.
Honestly, it has all the trappings of an extortion attempt from the girl's parents. People in hockey talk, it's a small circle, rumors travel, and the truth gets out but after the case was dismissed, the story disappeared. Of course, the Blues needed to distance themselves from him and he needed a change of scenery as the case was still in process as they were a named party to the suit, so they traded him. If there were any legitimacy to it, I'd have to think it'd follow him, but he played another 15 years and you never heard any opposition players heckling him over it, etc. Not to be dismissive of an accuser or whatever, but this doesn't pass the smell test and I think everyone in the league agreed.
Honestly, it has all the trappings of an extortion attempt from the girl's parents. People in hockey talk, it's a small circle, rumors travel, and the truth gets out but after the case was dismissed, the story disappeared. Of course, the Blues needed to distance themselves from him and he needed a change of scenery as the case was still in process as they were a named party to the suit, so they traded him. If there were any legitimacy to it, I'd have to think it'd follow him, but he played another 15 years and you never heard any opposition players heckling him over it, etc. Not to be dismissive of an accuser or whatever, but this doesn't pass the smell test and I think everyone in the league agreed.
I think you might have a very naive view of the American justice system. Here is an excerpt from an LA times article about the grand jury's decision to not indict:
"John Ross, chief trial attorney for St. Louis County prosecuting attorney George Westfall, said he was surprised by the decision. Ross said part of the evidence was a diary in which the girl described a string of sexual encounters with Gilmour."
www.latimes.com
They had a diary describing their encounters. Nowadays we would call that corrobating evidence in what is often called a he-said she-said case. The problem is the case was marred by countersuit that claimed that the prosecution was trying to extort the blues.
Remeber this was not only pre-metoo but pre-anita hill. It took decades for Bill Cosby past to catch up to him.
"John Ross, chief trial attorney for St. Louis County prosecuting attorney George Westfall, said he was surprised by the decision. Ross said part of the evidence was a diary in which the girl described a string of sexual encounters with Gilmour."
Jury Won't Indict Gilmour on Sex Charge
A grand jury has decided not to indict former St.
www.latimes.com
They had a diary describing their encounters. Nowadays we would call that corrobating evidence in what is often called a he-said she-said case. The problem is the case was marred by countersuit that claimed that the prosecution was trying to extort the blues.
Remeber this was not only pre-metoo but pre-anita hill. It took decades for Bill Cosby past to catch up to him.
I can't get into any of it here because of site rules, but the full story behind this is pretty incredible and I think people would be pretty amazed by all of the details, and how much it actually effected hockey matters.
It's a story that is very much "of its time." In today's world, things would have unfolded very differently.
Last edited:
Interesting, would be interested to hear more details on this case. I was a kid just getting into hockey in the mid to late 80’s, but grew up n a remote town with limited media access. I know very little about this incident.
It is the Rock Hall of Fame, and he was a Rolling Stone. My guess is if he DIDN'T have a sex scandal with an underage girl it would hurt him
Okay in all seriousness, back to Gilmour. Yes I think this was the reason why they waited a while to put him in the HHOF. I can remember him being a Leaf no one said a word about it. It was forgotten if it was even something that people knew in the first place. I don't want to get into whether or not this case was black and white or if there is a grey area in there because I will admit I don't know everything about the case 100%.
But the HHOF is known for sort of punishing players it doesn't like or didn't like their off-ice stuff. Glenn Anderson should never have waited until 2008 to get in, but I would think his wild off-ice antics played a role. Adam Oates didn't have scandals or anything but he was quiet and more or less dismissive with the media and I think that is why it took him 5 years longer to get in than it should have. Gilmour too took 5 years longer to get in. I thought for sure he was getting in back in 2006.
The HHOF knows that Gilmour is too good to not allow in, but they also wanted to sort of save face and get the upper hand on him as if to say "We'll decide when you get in". Another thing that helped Gilmour is that he was loved in a place like Toronto and generally well respected around the NHL. Also played like he was 6'4" 230lbs.
Agree with a lot of this except for the Glenn Anderson stuff had he not been a rider on that Oilers bus no one would be talking about him as a HHOFer.It is the Rock Hall of Fame, and he was a Rolling Stone. My guess is if he DIDN'T have a sex scandal with an underage girl it would hurt him
Okay in all seriousness, back to Gilmour. Yes I think this was the reason why they waited a while to put him in the HHOF. I can remember him being a Leaf no one said a word about it. It was forgotten if it was even something that people knew in the first place. I don't want to get into whether or not this case was black and white or if there is a grey area in there because I will admit I don't know everything about the case 100%.
But the HHOF is known for sort of punishing players it doesn't like or didn't like their off-ice stuff. Glenn Anderson should never have waited until 2008 to get in, but I would think his wild off-ice antics played a role. Adam Oates didn't have scandals or anything but he was quiet and more or less dismissive with the media and I think that is why it took him 5 years longer to get in than it should have. Gilmour too took 5 years longer to get in. I thought for sure he was getting in back in 2006.
The HHOF knows that Gilmour is too good to not allow in, but they also wanted to sort of save face and get the upper hand on him as if to say "We'll decide when you get in". Another thing that helped Gilmour is that he was loved in a place like Toronto and generally well respected around the NHL. Also played like he was 6'4" 230lbs.
Even as is his case is iffy.
But to this thread stuff like this is hard to look at in the 2024 lens and that's not how history should be looked at 1984 was a lot different that 2024 and we have progressed in some ways and in other ways we haven't.
Craig MacTavish actually killed someone and he got in so no.
What the hell are you talking about? MacTavish is not in the Hall of Fame.
(Also, could you be more insensitive? MacTavish didn't do anything that dozens of other pro-hockey players have done -- see: Ray Bourque a few years ago -- except he happened to be unlucky and a tragedy occurred. MacTavish also took full responsibility for his actions and has spent literally the rest of his life supporting the family of the victim and making amends, such as is possible.)
a person i look askance at here is the professor, ron caron
he rehomed gilmour to calgary in 1988
then in the summer of 1990 he rehomes geoff courtnall amd scott stevens the other way
from a pure value aspect, i get seizing the opportunity to acquire the two ex-capitals, one at below market and the other being a player who normally would almost never be obtainable. but given the gilmour trade preceding, i also sense that this was a guy who saw the alleged incidents as nuisance problems that it was his job as a “hockey man” to remediate (in, obviously, ways that i think most of us would frown upon).
he rehomed gilmour to calgary in 1988
then in the summer of 1990 he rehomes geoff courtnall amd scott stevens the other way
from a pure value aspect, i get seizing the opportunity to acquire the two ex-capitals, one at below market and the other being a player who normally would almost never be obtainable. but given the gilmour trade preceding, i also sense that this was a guy who saw the alleged incidents as nuisance problems that it was his job as a “hockey man” to remediate (in, obviously, ways that i think most of us would frown upon).
What does it matter if other people do the same thing, it's still equally bad. It's a weird thing to say, also the unlucky part was probably the part who got killed, and her relatives/friends, not MacTavish.
214 playoff points is pretty hard to ignore though. 93 goals. Not to mention still a few 100 point seasons. The bigger the game the bigger he played. There is a passenger and there is a guy like Anderson who was intertwined in the greatness of the team. Very responsible for their success. And to be the 4th or 5th most responsible on that team is still darn good.
Agree on this. That woman was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. I do also agree that MacTavish has been a good citizen since then and has compensated the family. You can make a horrible mistake and still decide what to do at a fork in the road. Mac took the right path afterwards.
“Don’t be mean to Mactavish just because he unluckily killed somebody. I used to cheer for him when I was 8 years old”
I was saying in another thread recently but didn’t Gilmour sue the parents? That seems like the actions of a man unjustly wronged. If he is guilty then he is like a Dickens’ villain.
Mactavish made a huge mistake. It was stupid but it wasn’t heinous. Hasn’t he not drank since then? Helped the family? His actions have been good since then and I feel he’s made his amends. I doubt that sits lightly on his conscious
Mactavish made a huge mistake. It was stupid but it wasn’t heinous. Hasn’t he not drank since then? Helped the family? His actions have been good since then and I feel he’s made his amends. I doubt that sits lightly on his conscious
The girl had a diary at the time I remember, but I don’t recall the details of what she wrote in it, or what happened about it.
It goes without saying that MacTavish actions leading the death of another person were horrible. But let's not forget that drinking and driving was incredibly prevalent back in the day. While this doesn't excuse the act, it's not fair to equate a lapse in judgment made 40-45 years ago when societal attitudes were only just beginning to change to those who commit the act today. Furthermore as others have noted, his actions after the fact i.e. accepting full responsibility, showing true remorse and never repeated the action - something many drunks have an incredibly hard time with, should all be taken into account. Especially in comparison to a person who has not accepted any responsibility for his (alleged) actions, even if the end result if those actions is not as grave.
anti-SLAPP laws exist so yeah some people are dickensian villains
It matters in this discussion because a poster—out of nowhere—is picking on a guy who drove drunk (once, as far as we know, at age 25), something many of our favorite players have unfortunately probably done multiple times. It also matters because the player being picked on is a grade-A example of how to attempt to redeem the unredeemable consequences of your action. In short, of numerous high-profile (usually young, male) athletes whose irresponsible actions have caused harm, he's one of the last ones who should be getting called out and labelled a killer.
Next, you obviously know that my use of "unlucky" was exclusively in the context of athletes behaving irresponsibly. I am dismayed by your insinuation that I am victim-blaming, which suggests a highly disingenuous agenda on your part (and by the way, you have a weird tendency to respond negatively and spitefully to most of my posts, in all topics). For me, the tragedy of the victim's death is too large to even bring up her name / identity here, as that would be getting way beyond the scope of this thread.
There is sometimes a point of distinction in these matters in people's general philosophy. Personally, I hold strong to the Christian ethic of forgiveness and redemption (not in the religious sense, but in the material-life sense). In short, I believe that everyone has human dignity and the right to attempt to redeem themselves, and we as a society then have the choice to respect their effort in this regard or not. I personally choose to.
Last edited by a moderator:
Anderson's post season all star voting speaks volumes as to why is a questionable HHOFer.
Finishes of 7,4,5,6,3.9 and 11th would be one thing if he was a center in a 32 team league but he was a winger in a 21 team league and aside from that his regular season resume adds extremely little.
On my personal scale, players like Glenn Anderson wouldn't be Hall of Famers. (Neither would about 75% of players recently inducted.)
But given the Hall's actual standards, I would rate Anderson as 'borderline'. So, is he a borderline who lands "in" or a borderline who lands "out"?
I would veer towards "in" because of his spectacular playoff heroics. He led the playoff in ES goals in 1987, scoring an OT goal in round one, the spectacular goal that led to OT (won by Edmonton) in game two of the Fnals, and the Cup-clinching goal in game seven. Likewise, 1990—now, post-Gretzky & Coffey—when Anderson came up trumps in games four and five to tilt the series and Cup in Edmonton's favor. (Though obviously not Hall-worthy, Anderson's solid 1993 playoff run with Toronto also showed he could be clutch and effective post-Oilers.)
Anderson also looked good at Canada Cups in 1984 and 1987.
So, I think these are all things that distinguish him somewhat from an otherwise comparable player, like, say, Brian Bellows or whoever.
But given the Hall's actual standards, I would rate Anderson as 'borderline'. So, is he a borderline who lands "in" or a borderline who lands "out"?
I would veer towards "in" because of his spectacular playoff heroics. He led the playoff in ES goals in 1987, scoring an OT goal in round one, the spectacular goal that led to OT (won by Edmonton) in game two of the Fnals, and the Cup-clinching goal in game seven. Likewise, 1990—now, post-Gretzky & Coffey—when Anderson came up trumps in games four and five to tilt the series and Cup in Edmonton's favor. (Though obviously not Hall-worthy, Anderson's solid 1993 playoff run with Toronto also showed he could be clutch and effective post-Oilers.)
Anderson also looked good at Canada Cups in 1984 and 1987.
So, I think these are all things that distinguish him somewhat from an otherwise comparable player, like, say, Brian Bellows or whoever.
I think you were initially responding to a post that wasn't necessarily wholly serious in tone. It's @who_me? who is a famous jest poster on this board and the author of the notorious (and now probably buried, after a million ridiculous site "updates") Duncan Keith is a chihuahua on skates thread (this thread predates Chicago's mini-dynasty btw). I understand tone can be hard sometimes through text, but I think overall people tend to get a little bit too upset unnecessarily on this board, often over quite trivial things.
Tragic things can be funny sometimes, though it's a fine line obviously, but humour is often a coping mechanism in hard times. I remember when Vincent Damphousse had that domestic violence issue going on years ago, someone on this site made a "a housse is not a home" (or something similar) joke, which probably was a bit insensitive (and got mod nuked btw, the post, I think), but I remember laughing out loud at it anyways because it was so ridiculous (the joke, not the situation). That (obviously) doesn't mean I condone domestic violence or try to downplay it.
I also don't think he called MacTavish a killer, he said he killed someone which is technically true.
I don't go out of my way to pick on you, I actually appreciate posters with different opinions and it would be boring if everyone here had the same opinion on everything (the site is already boring enough through regurgitated topics). I think most of our Messier banter, for instance, is in good spirit (?), well at least on my part it is. I guess you can take it as a compliment (if you want to), because posters I genuinely dislike, or which I find uninteresting, I don't engage with.
