I don't like either guy. I wish the Hawks had been proactive and dealt with this properly, but given that they didn't my second choice if there were any justice would have been to have had it come out right away so all the execs who knew and did nothing would have suffered consequences for not acting, as opposed to winning a bunch of Cups, and in Cheveldayoff's case parlaying that into a GM gig. And most importantly spared the subsequent victims a lifetime of trauma.
All those guys got the hockey exec equivalent of a jackpot. I don't feel a lick of sympathy for any of them.
Do I think either guy should be banned from working in the NHL ever again? No. Did either show the kind of leadership that you want from a GM? No. Do I think they both benefited greatly from the story not coming out? Yes, as Bowman got to sit 10 extra years in a GM chair, win accolades and Cups, and become an Olympic GM, so let's not make it out like he took a big hit. Oh boo hoo, he had to sit out 3 years (when he was probably on the verge of losing his job for hockey reasons anyway) and then pop right back into a Cup finalist GM chair. It ultimately worked out great for him in the long run, wouldn't you say?
And for the record, if it had been up to me Cheveldayoff would have at least received a year off, minimum, and if I were running a team that would not be someone I'd want back afterward anyway. But if the argument is that Bowman is not as culpable as the President, then the same should apply to the assistant GM being less culpable than the GM. Just like I don't think the confidant who had zero executive power should have any blame at all, when he talked to Bowman about how bad things were he probably thought (like most reasonable people might) that the GM would make sure it was dealt with. He didn't go to the assistant GM because that's not the guy who's supposed to be able to do much about it.
The fact that you're down to whataboutism as a defense doesn't exactly suggest that it's truly all that defensible.
