He knew about it, wrote Aldrich a recommendation letter, and the guy used that letter to get a high school job where he molested a high school player. Then said he only learned about it through the media.
This seems to be false. And what he knew is in dispute. More on that below.
Honestly, this might be the best place for Q to go. Zero pressure and the least media attention in the league.
I reserve judgement until it is completely and see how he, PV, and ownership respond to questions about how he has changed since then.
Some people are never going to forgive no matter what he does, and it just is what it is.
If/when Q is hired by the ducks or any other team, there will be a firestorm that I think will blow over pretty quickly.
Here’s the independent report, for anyone who wants to read about just how slimy the situation was, and just
how much Quenneville has absolutely not actually owned up to what happened.
I've now read the key parts of the report. I suggest people read it as well, particularly the portion starting on page 38 which details what was known/disclosed. I think the statement bolded above is not supported by the report and subsequent athletic article.
It appears there is a serious disagreement as to what was reported by the victim initially. - read page 42 "John Doe’s and Black Ace 1’s Conversations with Jim Gary" and page 46, Jim Gary's statement. The victim (who was suing the Hawks) claims he made full disclosure to Jim Gary of the actual sexual assault. All other parties recall the victim disclosing that Aldrich was socializing with players (which would be inappropriate/unusual even w/o sexual assault) and engaging in sexual advances (texts, etc,) but no mention of sexual assault.
The key meeting was after game 4 in San Jose. It seems that all parties at the meeting agree that Jim Gary - the only one who spoke with the victim at that time - did not report an actual sexual assault. Quenneville, in particular, denies having knowledge of an actual sexual assault or even the player involved. Page 50. So either the victim did not report an assault to Gary (as Gary claims) or Gary did not report that in the meeting.
In hindsight, we all agree that the Hawks (including Q) should have done more and acted more aggressively to investigate and take action. That being said, I think it is understandable that people would react differently to claims of inappropriate socializing/texts/advances vs an actual sexual assault or a coach demanding sex in exchange for helping that player's career (essentially a casting couch of sorts). And we need to remember this all occurred in 2010, prior to the me too movement which brough a lot of awareness to these situations.
And by all accounts, it seems that Q was not aware of the sexual assault or for that matter the details of what happened. He should have been more curios - but at the same time he expected his superiors would handle the investigation and take action. The reality is that if a proper HR investigation would have been commenced (as it should have), Q likely would have been told by the investigators to not take any further action pending the investigation. That is pretty typical once HR gets involved.
My bottom line in reading the report is that Q should have done more to protect his players, but that primary responsibility for taking action was with his bosses.
The Samueli’s almost certainly signed off to even interview him. You’re probably not going to waste that time interviewing the guy and doing your own due diligence if you’re uncertain what the owners might say. Maybe they’d change their minds if there was significant backlash but probably not IMO(and I don’t think there will be).
Ignoring the moral aspect I don’t think it’s poses much of a risk off-ice like others are suggesting. A team in a much fiercer media market hired someone more culpable and not much came of it. There also little chance of something like it happening again. It really isn’t remotely like the Babcock situation in that sense.
The Samuelis may have signed off - not sure about that. If you interview Q, the first inquiry is about the incident and Q's actions since being fired, some of which is detailed in the athletic article.
For sure the Samuelis will have to sign off hiring Q. By no means does an interview mean they're willing to hire him.
That’s true. He actually verbalized that he felt addressing/looking into it at all would detract from a Cup run. That’s significantly worse than indifference.
Read the report. He denies saying that. But even if he did, he said this in the context of not knowing the victim had been sexually assaulted.
Thank you for posting this, it pretty well covers all the feelings I have about Q. I appreciate that he seems to have done the work to atone. I don’t like that he still denied knowing what actually happened when all the reports say he did know. Screams that he may have learned what to do in the future but he’s truly incapable of taking full responsibility for his role. How are the players gonna respect a coach who won’t take full responsibility for his mistakes?
I still would rather he not be hired. Im less against it happening when the report first came out, i wont stop watching the ducks but i wouldn’t give them any money. He would also have the absolute shortest leash possible. We don’t make the playoffs he and Pat would both need to be fired.
I don't read the article that way.
(maybe)
