The Decline of Vladimir Krutov

[Theokritos]

Again, we trip over false ideas about standards of proof. No one has to "prove" anything for us to discuss it and take it into account in the ATD. What-x-said-about-y is about 90% of the evidence we use around here beyond raw statistics. To attempt to throw out or undermine the validity of this sort of evidence only in the case of Krutov is just silly.

The validity of the (alleged) evidence against Krutov is certainly up to debate.

What we got is:
-The fact that Krutov fell from a cliff in 1989.
-A journalist reporting that two unnamed members of the Canucks staff told him that Larionov implied to them Krutov was on steroids before he came to NA.

Larionov's biography on the other hand add nothing towards the accusation.

Now if a journalist reported that two unnamed members of the Canadiens staff told him that Jacques Lemaire told them Guy Lafleur used to take PEDs up until 1981, which chimes with the "circumstantial evidence" (the rather abrupt end of Lafleur's prime), would you take that as evidence enough to knock Lafleur out of the top 100 players of all time?

 

[BenchBrawl]

Is it wrong to assume that if Krutov was on roids back then, then he's on roids in the ATD? (Which means we just ignore the steroid use allegations when judging his value).

I'm never sure what to think of these issues.

 

[Sturminator]

Now if a journalist reported that two unnamed members of the Canadiens staff told him that Jacques Lemaire told them Guy Lafleur used to take PEDs up until 1981, which chimes with the "circumstantial evidence" (the rather abrupt end of Lafleur's prime), would you take that as evidence enough to knock Lafleur out of the top 100 players of all time?

If Lafleur was 5'9" and I had repeatedly watched him push around guys like Ray Bourque in the corners...I might give it some serious thought, yeah.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some folks want certainty in the cognitive process - black and white answers to life's questions. I hate to disappoint you fine people, but we will never know for sure what happened with Vladimir Krutov's career, and making a fair evaluation of his legacy requires that we hold conflicting ideas in our heads at the same time.

If that makes you uncomfortable, then pick a side of the fence and stand on it. For my part, I don't see Krutov's career as a question of one or the other. The black in this picture is the Krutov we saw in Vancouver - an absolute sad sack of a hockey player and a human being, utterly useless in this, the MLD, or even the AAA draft. That's the downside, and it is very serious, but that's not how I think we ought to treat him.

The upside is that he was completely clean, in which case he's probably a low-end 1st liner in a 32 team ATD. How to balance these poles, all the values in between them, and the likelihood of any given value being correct is up to the individual to decide. For my part, I think the downside is too probable and too severe to simply bump Krutov down from low-end 1st liner to good 2nd liner, which is how he was drafted this year. That valuation doesn't adequately take the uncertainties into account, imo.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's an awful lot of smoke around Krutov's career for there not to be a fire. For a man of his size, he had shocking strength during his Soviet career, then he comes to North America at the age of 29, only months after another strong season in the Soviet league, and is absolute garbage, fat and weak. I can understand that he had problems adjusting to life in Canada, but it's not like he played well for a while, got homesick and drank too much; he was never good in Vancouver, never even close to the player who had thrilled audiences in the '87 Canada Cup. To then learn that Larionov fingered him for steroid use, knowing that he came from a Soviet athletic program which we know (from many sources, not just Larionov) was dirty...like I said: a lot of smoke.

 

[Theokritos]

then he comes to North America at the age of 29, only months after another strong season in the Soviet league, and is absolute garbage, fat and weak.

...after spending the first off-season (4-5 months) of his hockey career (20+ years) outside of the rigid CSKA training regime.

To then learn that Larionov fingered him for steroid use

For the record: what we learn is that someone says somebody told him that Larionov told him that Krutov was on PEDs.

 

[Sturminator]

For the record: what we learn is that someone says somebody told him that Larionov told him that Krutov was on PEDs.

You are misrepresenting what was written. Here is the text of the interview:

7. In Larionov’s autobiography, his famous 1988 letter to Ogonyok is reprinted. He states that all members of the “Green Unitâ€â€“including Vladimir Krutov–refused to accept mysterious injections from national team doctors prior to the 1982 World Championships in Finland. However, in Gretzky to Lemieux, you write: “Larionov intimated that Krutov had been fed steroids on a consistent basis when he played for the national team that helped account for his great strength on the puck.†So the picture is a bit murky. Is it your view that we’re looking at an East German women’s swimming team-type scenario, so to speak?

That’s my view, but to be clear, we’re talking about Krutov here, not Larionov. I talked to two members of the Vancouver Canucks organization who were around when both players came over in 1989, and they both said one of the reasons Krutov was so bad was because he’d been cut off from his supply of steroids. Can I prove that? No.

One part of the accusation comes directly from the Vancouver Canucks trainers. It's not clear exactly to whom Larionov passed this information, but we know that Willes interviewed Larionov directly when writing the book, so the safer assumption would be that he got the information from Igor, himself.

The assertion that Willes picked it up second-hand through the Canucks trainers is a delightful bit of semantic trickery meant to shield Krutov from blame, nothing more.

 

[BraveCanadian]

One part of the accusation comes directly from the Vancouver Canucks trainers.

That is not what his answer states.. it could have been the stick boys for all we know. Or does he state it elsewhere that we haven't seen here?

It's not clear exactly to whom Larionov passed this information, but we know that Willes interviewed Larionov directly when writing the book, so the safer assumption would be that he got the information from Igor, himself.

The safer assumption if you want to arrive at your opinion, I agree.

The assertion that Willes picked it up second-hand through the Canucks trainers is a delightful bit of semantic trickery meant to shield Krutov from blame, nothing more.

In your opinion.

In any case it is obvious you're going to stick to your guns that one player on the Soviet national team has a tarnished legacy while the rest of us will believe in the much more nuanced view.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

The upside is that he was completely clean, in which case he's probably a low-end 1st liner in a 32 team ATD. How to balance these poles, all the values in between them, and the likelihood of any given value being correct is up to the individual to decide. For my part, I think the downside is too probable and too severe to simply bump Krutov down from low-end 1st liner to good 2nd liner, which is how he was drafted this year. That valuation doesn't adequately take the uncertainties into account, imo.

This is off IMO, again the HOH project ranked Krutov as the 21st best LWer of all time, and that is by a group of people that were NOT assuming he was completely clean.

If he was completely clean, I think it's fair to say he's at worst an average 1st line LW in a 32 team draft.

 

[jarek]

Am I the only one who discounts a lot of Krutov's value due to his spectacular and horrendous attempt at playing in the NHL, regardless of why it happened?

 

[Iceman]

Am I the only one who discounts a lot of Krutov's value due to his spectacular and horrendous attempt at playing in the NHL, regardless of why it happened?

Yes. That's why it's hard to rate some Europeans from way back, because they they didn't get any matchups against contemporary Canadian players of that day except for a pinch of international games.

 

[Sturminator]

This is off IMO, again the HOH project ranked Krutov as the 21st best LWer of all time, and that is by a group of people that were NOT assuming he was completely clean.

If he was completely clean, I think it's fair to say he's at worst an average 1st line LW in a 32 team draft.

Meh. The most reasonable analysis in that discussion came from seventieslord here:

based on that, he's eligible right in the correct round. this 7-year total is right in line with guys like Recchi, Robitaille, Kariya, etc. However, he did this with a guy who was averaging 131.5 per season, so you have to consider that as being a factor.

Ultimately if you tried to throw him in with the modern guys, you'd likely have to conclude that he matches their production, but with a lot more help.

those are my thoughts, what are yours?

I think seventies was probably about right. A clean Krutov was about as offensively productive as guys like Robitaille and Kariya, but "with a lot more help." (emphasis his).

Another informative post in the HOH Krutov discussion can be found here. Notice how far behind Makarov (and Balderis) he really is. The Federko-to-Bossy comparison is a bit unfair, but the point is that Makarov was by a very wide margin the better player, and almost certainly carried Krutov's scoring to a certain extent. One wonders how far ahead of Kozhevnikov he'd have been had they skated with linemates of equal class.

The ultimate ranking of the HOH wingers project with respect to Krutov is much less interesting than the conversation it generated. Players like Krutov (and Pitre, et al) are always ranked quite randomly in those projects due to an almost complete lack of quantifiable comparables to established stars. I just provided the two best comparables to come out of that discussion, neither of which indicates that even a clean Krutov should be considered a top-15ish all-time left wing, which is what you are implying.

 

[Theokritos]

One part of the accusation comes directly from the Vancouver Canucks trainers. It's not clear exactly to whom Larionov passed this information, but we know that Willes interviewed Larionov directly when writing the book, so the safer assumption would be that he got the information from Igor, himself.

Strongly disagree with that take and I have pointed out before why I do:

"Larionov intimated that Krutov had been fed steroids on a consistent basis when he played for the national team that helped account for his great strength on the puck."

Willes says Larionov intimated as opposed to Larionov intimates. Note for comparison:
-"He was spent," says Bob McCammon, the Canucks' coach that season.
-"Krutov was a very simple man (etc)," Quinn says of Krutov.
-"It was difficult when you're changing your life from the Soviet Union to America," says Larionov.

Present tense - what was said at the time of the making of the book, assumingly to Willes in person while he did his research.

And then there is the following:
-Larionov was in attendance...
-The Canucks thought they were getting one of the five best players in the world...
-Krutov, it was quickly revealed, had discovered an unhealthy appetite...
-The Canucks played a dump-and-chase style that year...
-Larionov tried...
-"You should have seen me five years ago," he said.

Refers to what happened & was said back in 1989/1990.

Now tell me in which of the two categories you would put the decisive passage: "Two years later, he was a wreck. The Canucks believed part of the problem concerned the "supplements" Krutov had been given when he was in Russia. Larionov intimated that Krutov had been fed steroids on a consistent basis when he played for the national team..."

Shows conclusively that Willes did not get the information from Larionov himself IMHO.

 

[Sturminator]

Strongly disagree with that take and I have pointed out before why I do:

Shows conclusively that Willes did not get the information from Larionov himself IMHO.

I've sent an e-mail to Ed Willes asking for clarification regarding some of the questions that have been raised. Hopefully, he will take the time to answer. Parsing verb tenses is a little petty for my taste, especially when the source of the information makes himself available for contact.

 

[Sturminator]

So Ed Willes gave us a remarkably quick answer (I'm surprised he reads his business e-mails on Sunday). First, the text of my e-mail to him:

Good day Mr. Willes,

I am working on a hockey history project, and we've come upon some difficult questions regarding the steroid allegations in relation to Vladimir Krutov from your book, Gretzky to Lemieux. If you've got a minute, I'd really appreciate it if you could clarify a few things for us.

1) You write that “Larionov intimated that Krutov had been fed steroids on a consistent basis when he played for the national team..." Did he tell you this, himself, when you interviewed him, or did he communicate this to members of the Vancouver Canucks organization, who passed the information on to you?

2) The members of the Canucks organization who told you that Krutov was in withdrawal from steroids when he was in Vancouver - what were their positions within the organization? I'm not interested in their identities...only in knowing if they were members of the training staff, coaching staff, front office, etc.

3) What specific reasons did the members of the Canucks organization give you for their assertions regarding Krutov? Were they basically passing on what Igor Larionov had told them, or did they have their own reasons independent of what Larionov did or didn't say?

Thank you for your time.

And his response:

Sure. As for the first question, Igor did a book with Jim Taylor when he first came to Vancouver- I think it's called Larionov but you'll have to look it up - in which he describes life under Tikhnonov and the Russian training system. He describes in detail being called into a medical room at Archangel and being fed pills which he was told were vitamins but he believed to be steroids. I'm going on memory here but it's there in the book and it's a first-person account. As for the second question, it was a member of the coaching staff. Third, Krutov was in such terrible shape when he arrived in Vancouver. When he was with the Russian national team he was a tank, couldn't be knocked off the puck, explosive, fast. You look at the '87 Canada Cup and he was the third best player in the series after Gretzky and Lemieux and there were a ton of Hall of Famers in that series. When he got to Vancouver, he was a shell of that player. The member of the coaching staff singled out steroids but, clearly, his overall conditioning was a massive problem and the reason he didn't come close to reaching the same level in the NHL he reached with the Russians.

Sounds like we'll need to dig up the book Larionov (I don't have it) and try to figure out exactly which passage Mr. Willes was referencing as Larionov's "intimation" that Krutov had been fed steroids on a regular basis. On the one hand, what Igor told Jim Taylor will be a first person account and so should carry weight. On the other hand, if Larionov's statements only amount to a general indictment of the Soviet hockey program and not Krutov specifically, that would presumably change things.

That a member of the Canucks coaching staff singled out Krutov for steroids is what it is.

 

[bluesfan94]

The way that I see it, we routinely use the words of reporters to defend our players. Therefore, this isn't speculation any more than using quotes about old time players is speculation. Did Krutov use steroids? Probably - there's evidence that supports it. Was he out of shape because of alcohol/eating habits? Probably - there's evidence that supports it. Was Krutov partially a product of the system? Probably - there's evidence that supports it. What's most likely is that it's a mix of all three plus being in a different country. But the fact that he did not do well in the NHL has to be taken into consideration.

The question that should be asked, and what should be defended by the owner of Krutov, is if his coach (Darryl Sutter) will provide enough structure for Krutov not to fail.

 

[Theokritos]

So Ed Willes gave us a remarkably quick answer (I'm surprised he reads his business e-mails on Sunday). First, the text of my e-mail to him:

Thank you for doing this and thanks to Ed Willes too. Much appreciated!

Ed Willes:
As for the first question, Igor did a book with Jim Taylor when he first came to Vancouver- I think it's called Larionov but you'll have to look it up - in which he describes life under Tikhnonov and the Russian training system. He describes in detail being called into a medical room at Archangel and being fed pills which he was told were vitamins but he believed to be steroids. I'm going on memory here but it's there in the book and it's a first-person account.

1) This confirms my argument in post #107. Ed Willes did not get the information from Larionov in person. The sentence "Larionov intimidated..." does indeed refer to something that (allegedly) happened & was said back in 1989/1990.

2) The book Willes mentions here happens to be one and the same book we've been talking about earlier: Larionov's autobiography.

ABC Bookworld:
Born on March 16, 1937 in Nipawin, Saskatchewan, Jim Taylor of West Vancouver was B.C.'s most widely-read sports columnist... In addition to Taylor's books on Wayne Gretzky, entitled Gretzky: The Authorized Pictorial Biography with Wayne Gretzky, and B.C. Lions' Jim Young, entitled Dirty Thirty, Taylor is credited with the re-write of a Soviet journalist's biography of Igor Larionov.

The book was published in Winnipeg anno 1990 and is credited to Igor Larionov, Jim Taylor and Leonid Reizer. Reizer presumably was the Soviet journalist who was responsible for the initial version. Prior to the English edition in 1990 there was a Finnish version published in 1989 titled "Ykkösketju kapinoi" (Front line rebels) and credited to Larionov, Reizer and Tuomo-Pekka Kalliomäki (the latter seemingly being the Finnish counterpart of Jim Taylor).

Ed Willes:
As for the second question, it was a member of the coaching staff.

"That a member of the Canucks coaching staff singled out Krutov for steroids is what it is." Can't argue with that.

Ed Willes:
Third, Krutov was in such terrible shape when he arrived in Vancouver.

PEDs don't put you into top shape by themselves if you don't work out. Neither do you just stop being in shape when you stop taking PEDs but keep working out. If Krutov arrived in terrible shape in Vancouver in September 1989, it's because he spent "a summer of sloth" (May-Sept) for the first time in his career. To be clear, this does not tell us whether he took PEDs or not up until that summer, but it explains his abrupt decline in 1989 without the need to assume steroid-related issues.

On the one hand, what Igor told Jim Taylor will be a first person account and so should carry weight. On the other hand, if Larionov's statements only amount to a general indictment of the Soviet hockey program and not Krutov specifically, that would presumably change things.

Spot on.

 

[seventieslord]

So Ed Willes gave us a remarkably quick answer (I'm surprised he reads his business e-mails on Sunday). First, the text of my e-mail to him:



And his response:



Sounds like we'll need to dig up the book Larionov (I don't have it) and try to figure out exactly which passage Mr. Willes was referencing as Larionov's "intimation" that Krutov had been fed steroids on a regular basis. On the one hand, what Igor told Jim Taylor will be a first person account and so should carry weight. On the other hand, if Larionov's statements only amount to a general indictment of the Soviet hockey program and not Krutov specifically, that would presumably change things.

That a member of the Canucks coaching staff singled out Krutov for steroids is what it is.

Wow, awesome that we were able to get some more detail here.

I have this book. I have not read it yet and it is not indexed. How can I be of assistance? You want me to find that passage?

 

[seventieslord]

Larionov's biography on the other hand add nothing towards the accusation.

....or are we past this part already? We've confirmed that there's nothing damning in the biography?

 

[VMBM]

Sounds like we'll need to dig up the book Larionov (I don't have it) and try to figure out exactly which passage Mr. Willes was referencing as Larionov's "intimation" that Krutov had been fed steroids on a regular basis.

Like Theokritos said, the book has been translated into Finnish. I don't know how much the version in English differs from it or if at all. However, it's clear that Larionov does not single out Krutov (as a steroid user) in the book, but rather indicates that others cheated, not the members of the Green Unit. Hmmm...

Here is a "Deseret News" article about it in November 5th 1989, with some excerpts from the book:

Soviet hockey players and laboratory workers conspired to deceive drug testers at the 1986 World Championships in Moscow by hiding urine specimens behind toilets, former Soviet star Igor Larionov claims in a new book.

Larionov, who now plays for the NHL's Vancouver Canucks, also charges that Soviet national team coach Viktor Tikhonov ordered some players to receive injections even though they did not know the contents of the shots.Larionov, a long-time critic of Tikhonov and the way Soviet hockey is run, makes his claims in a book, "The Front Line Rebels," which has been published in Finnish.

Excerpts of the book were printed this week in the Helsinki newspaper Uusi Suomi, a respected daily that is the second-largest in Finland.

"When Soviet players went to the doping control points they used to take a container of prepared urine from behind the toilet bowl, which had been placed there," Larionov said in the book.

Soviet laboratory personnel were involved in the scheme and would follow players into the toilets, the book says.

The Soviets, who have dominated world hockey for the past three decades, has been accused in the past of drug use. But no proof of doping has been found.

The most powerful figure in Soviet hockey for the past decade has been Tikhonov, who was accused by Larionov last year of being an authoritarian.

A letter by Larionov also claimed Tikhonov often prevented players from seeing their wives and families during training, which lasted for most of the year. The letter led to a rift between Tikhonov and Larionov, who was backed by some teammates.

In the book, Larionov claims players were given injections at Tikhonov's command but were not told what was in the shots.

"I well remember the threats of the ice hockey monarch: `Those who refuse shots will be reported to the sports commission and decisions will be made . . . right up to disqualification from the national team,' " Uusi Suomi quoted Larionov as saying in the book. "Those were his own words.

"We were not the ones who cheated. The cheating was done on our behalf by others," Larionov said in the book. "There was never any mention of what was in the syringes. That was the doctor's business."

Larionov claims in the book that the top five players on the Soviet national team - himself, Vladimir Krutov, Sergei Makarov, Viacheslav Fetisov and Alexei Kasatonov - refused the injections because they did not want to "rise to new levels in the game in that way."

Krutov now is a teammate of Larionov in Vancouver, while Makarov plays for the Calgary Flames and Fetisov is a defenseman for the New Jersey Devils. Kasatonov was drafted by New Jersey in 1983 and is rumored to be close to joining the Devils.

BTW, in an interview (in English) that Larionov gave to Swedish TV crew in 1989 (or 1990?), he says basically the same things. The interview can be seen e.g. as an extra on the CCCP Hockey DVD (the Swedish documentary on the Green Unit & Tikhonov). But he did not speak very good English back then, so his book is probably the better source.

Could this topic be a separate thread on HOH, for example?

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Moving all discussion from the ATD 2015 Summary thread here. Please continue to discuss...

 

[Sturminator]

Thanks for doing this, Hawkey.

 

[Sturminator]

Just got another short e-mail from Ed (really surprised that he is so friendly and makes himself so accessible). Here is the text:

Funny, I was re-reading the book and came across the passage. Larionov wrote it was injections, not pills, then described the false urine sample they were given for testers.
________________________________________
From: Me
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 3:40 AM
To: Willes, Ed (The Province)
Subject: Re: Question about Gretzky to Lemieux

Thank you very much for your quick response. I appreciate you taking a few minutes out of your weekend to field my questions. You have set us on the right track, and we shall have to find a copy of the book Larionov wrote with Jim Taylor, then. Have a good one.

I think we should probably try to track down this passage in the book to see if there is anything in there specifically about Krutov.

 

[Theokritos]

....or are we past this part already? We've confirmed that there's nothing damning in the biography?

I thought so since all the quotes from the book I've seen don't contribute anything towards the accusations. "Players were given injections, but the Green Line refused to take them" and so on. But confirmation is much welcome for sure.

I have this book. I have not read it yet and it is not indexed. How can I be of assistance? You want me to find that passage?

Yes please!

Just got another short e-mail from Ed (really surprised that he is so friendly and makes himself so accessible). Here is the text:
(...)
I think we should probably try to track down this passage in the book to see if there is anything in there specifically about Krutov.

Could you ask him for the chapter and page where the passage can be found? So that Seventies can find it more easily.

 

[VMBM]

I think we should probably try to track down this passage in the book to see if there is anything in there specifically about Krutov.

Well, good luck with that. But there really isn't (unless Larionov later added something to the English edition[s?]).

And consider this: Larionov wrote/compiled the book when he was still playing with Krutov in Vancouver, so even if he had known something fishy about Krutov, it is very unlikely that he would have done something like that (i.e. make it public) to his buddy & teammate. If Larionov has said something about Krutov later on and/or privately, that would be another matter. But I think the key person here is rather that 'member of the coaching staff' (i.e. why was he convinced that Krutov had used steroids?). However, it does not seem likely that we'll ever even know who he is/was.

A couple of libraries in Helsinki have the book (the Finnish version), but if seventieslord is willing to do the research, I'd be more than happy to let him get on with it.

Finally, I'm not making a big deal about it, but I do find this passage in Willes' e-mail interesting:

Originally Posted by Ed Willes
The member of the coaching staff singled out steroids but, clearly, his overall conditioning was a massive problem and the reason he didn't come close to reaching the same level in the NHL he reached with the Russians.

So is even Willes now saying that his conditioning was the main reason, and not the supposed steroids? If he is, I agree with him.

 

[Sturminator]

And consider this: Larionov wrote/compiled the book when he was still playing with Krutov in Calgary, so even if he had known something fishy about Krutov, it is very unlikely that he would have done something like that (i.e. make it public) to his buddy & teammate. If Larionov has said something about Krutov later on and/or privately, that would be another matter. But I think the key person here is rather that 'member of the coaching staff' (i.e. why was he convinced that Krutov had used steroids?). However, it does not seem likely that we'll ever even know who he is/was.

Yeah, I think this is the core of the issue, along with the circumstantial stuff. For a variety of reasons, I am not going to ask Ed Willes for his source, so the accusation from the Canucks coaching staff will probably have to just stand as it is.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe more important to getting a clear picture of Vladimir Krutov's legacy would be a serious-minded breakdown of his actual career on the assumption that he was clean. One of the issues I have with Krutov is that I think his true level of skill got distorted in the minds of North American audiences by his showing in a couple of international tournaments, most notably the 1987 Canada Cup. Much as it is with Alexander Yakushev, who many North Americans still consider to have been the second best Soviet forward of his generation after Kharlamov, Krutov's supporters probably overrate him, even ignoring the doping allegations.

Here is a comparison of Krutov vs. the Soviet League scoring leaders throughout his career:

Season | Leader | Leader Points | Krutov Points | Krutov % of leader
1979-80 | Makarov | 68 | 42 | 62
1980-81 | Makarov | 79 | 40 | 51
1981-82 | Makarov | 75 | 66 | 88
1982-83 | Balderis | 63 | 53 | 84
1983-84 | Makarov | 73 | 57 | 78
1984-85 | Makarov | 65 | 53 | 82
1985-86 | Makarov | 62 | 48 | 77
1986-87 | Makarov | 53 | 50 | 94
1987-88 | Makarov | 68 | 42 | 62
1988-89 | Makarov | 54 | 41 | 76
Total | -- | 660 | 492 | 75

Just for comparison's sake, here are the scoring numbers for Marcel Dionne and Dave Taylor for the 1977-78 to 1986-87 period, when they played together on the same line in Los Angeles:

Player | GP | G | A | P
Dionne | 761 | 457 | 634 | 1091
Taylor | 684 | 321 | 473 | 794

For those of you scoring at home, Dave Taylor put up 73% of Dionne's points in 77 fewer games over the time they played together in Los Angeles, and this includes Taylor's rookie year and the 1982-83 season when he was really banged up. If you adjust for games played, he's actually a little bit closer to Dionne than Krutov is to Makarov.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So somebody explain to me how Krutov was a better scorer than Dave Taylor...because I really don't think Makarov (with one season of peak Balderis thrown in) was a better scorer than Dionne. Is Krutov basically Dave Taylor without the defense, a better playoff scoring record and an embarrassing crash-and-burn end to his career? In our drive to rehabilitate Vladimir Krutov's legacy, have we perhaps missed the fact that he was never that good to begin with?

 

[BraveCanadian]

And consider this: Larionov wrote/compiled the book when he was still playing with Krutov in Calgary, so even if he had known something fishy about Krutov, it is very unlikely that he would have done something like that (i.e. make it public) to his buddy & teammate. If Larionov has said something about Krutov later on and/or privately, that would be another matter. But I think the key person here is rather that 'member of the coaching staff' (i.e. why was he convinced that Krutov had used steroids?). However, it does not seem likely that we'll ever even know who he is/was.

Even if we found out which member of the staff it was I am sure it would only be their suspicion, anyways.

So is even Willes now saying that his conditioning was the main reason, and not the supposed steroids? If he is, I agree with him.

That was always pretty obviously the case for me (as well as a few others) as stated up thread.

Even if he had been using steroids it doesn't explain his sudden drop off if he had still put in the work.

A long summer of not working out and eating voraciously and then cultural isolation, showing up to play professional hockey in dreadful shape, and then ultimately failure and depression was always the more reasonable explanation.

Krutov as the only individual on the national team singled out for allegedly using PEDs based on the little evidence there is never made any sense in the first place.

So somebody explain to me how Krutov was a better scorer than Dave Taylor...because I really don't think Makarov (with one season of peak Balderis thrown in) was a better scorer than Dionne. Is Krutov basically Dave Taylor without the defense, a better playoff scoring record and an embarrassing crash-and-burn end to his career? In our drive to rehabilitate Vladimir Krutov's legacy, have we perhaps missed the fact that he was never that good to begin with?

Maybe Krutov is a bit of a Dave Taylor with the ability to go up a whole notch in big games at times.