1. The quantity of your posts indicates you're quite worked up about this, seemingly to the point where you are using inflammatory rhetoric not consistent with the facts.
2. I think you're mischaracterizing what Q was told. Per the report, he was made aware of inappropriate socializing/texting and perhaps hitting on the players. That is very different than being told that a coach was demanding sex acts (which is the underlying allegation). There is zero evidence Q knew that at the relevant time period.
3A. In addition, it is false to say that Q suggested "that they not investigate too intensely". Per all reports, he said nothing of the sort.
3B. Recommended by implication? That is quite a formulation. Again, what you fail to recognize, is that Q was under the impression this was a case involving sexual harassment, not actual sexual abuse.
4. I think its fair to say that allegations of harassment should have been sufficient to remove the coach. To me, that is the mistake. But to suggest (without evidence) that Q had knowledge of the rumors of abuse is not supported by any evidence.
5. I think this is correct, particularly by the standards of 2010 (pre-me too) and when Q understood he was dealing with harassment, not sexual blackmail.
6. Again, in this post you're using an over the top and misleading (if not false) formulation. The victims on the Chicago team were at age of majority. Full stop. And again, Q was not aware of sexual victimization of anyone, only harassment.
7. In addition, he did understand an investigation would be forthcoming. It is not his job to conduct the investigation.
8. So the only valid criticism I can see is that the coach was not suspended (or at least precluded from contact with players) pending the outcome of the investigation. That is where Q put his desire to win ahead of proper protocol.
9. I think there are other good coaching options that don't carry Q's baggage. But none have his pedigree. I don't feel strongly one way or the other on Q. But if Q is hired, he should be asked hard questions by the press and the ducks should be prepared to answer those same questions.
1. Yeah no shit I'm worked up about it. I find even the proposition that this man might be our coach to be abhorrent. If others feel less strongly than I do that's their business. This is very serious to me as someone who has always been extremely critical of the Blackhawks regarding this scandal and the NHL's limp dick response in "punishing" them. Hiring a man who was at the center of the scandal directly conflicts with my values and has me considering withdrawing my support for the team until Q is gone, if he does indeed become coach. As for the facts we can take that one at a time.
2. I'm not mischaracterizing anything. I read the report carefully and I've adjusted my language accordingly. Yes he maybe didn't know about a sexual assault before Aldridge was let go. He was, however, advised of unwanted sexual advances by a member of his staff on a young man (20 years old) in his care. That should be enough to trigger a deeper investigation than what the Blackhawks ended up doing.
3A. They didn't say it explicitly but when the team met to discuss what to do about the reports they'd received just after clinching a cup win, the discussion was tinged with lamentations on if they were to act too harshly against Aldridge, e.g. suspending him or asking the players questions, it might create a distraction that would impact the team's play during the Stanley Cup final. Quenneville was one of the individuals who voiced such a lamentation.
3B. And that makes it better? Again these are kids we're talking about. Kids who were under his care and supervision among others. Are you really trying to make the argument that potential sexual harassment against young men warrants less immediate and diligent investigation than potential sexual assault against young men? I doubt you are but the implication here is pretty damning.
4. It's not supported by evidence and I made that fairly clear. I suspect he knew because so many of his players reported to the investigators that they'd heard rumors of sexual activity between Beach and Aldridge. That much smoke around the locker room and all of it missed the head coach? I doubt it. But I wouldn't say it's impossible. What I can say is I don't believe the Jenner and Block report has all the information. That's dependent on everyone who spoke with them about the incident relaying 100% accurate and 100% truthful recollection of events that had transpired more than ten years before the investigation. I really doubt that occurred.
5. Again, I don't see why that disclaims Quenneville's opportunity to do more for a young man in his care.
6. You're right, I conflated being under drinking age with the age of minority and that was an embarassing mistake. They're still young men who were, at least to the knowledge of the Blackhawks brass, being subjected to sexual harassment from an individual with power over them. Irrespective of my thoughtless word choice, the distinction between known harassment and unknown sexual assault, to me, doesn't really absolve the inaction. These were more vulnerable individuals and there could have been more impropriety than mere harassment at play. The Blackhawks never really found out because they collectively decided they'd let hockey ops handle it separately and in a manner that wouldn't intrude upon and distract the players playing in the cup finals. Quenneville was in favor of those limitations, and those limitations resulted in additional offenses because the organization didn't take it seriously enough.
7. I never said it was but his words facilitated conditions that led to inaction and half-measures that resulted in additional harms.
8. I mean. A little half baked, but sure. You think it's fine that he just passed the buck and let the cards play out in the hands of others. I think he bore more responsibility than that and is probably lying about how much he actually knew. Whether he did or not, I find his inaction to be despicable.
9. And it will likely be entirely spin on how much Quenneville has learned and grown from his mistakes and ready to move forward. Some might buy that. Some might not. For me personally I have my take on what happened and I don't want that history intermingling with the team's image, their identity, or their value system and I don't believe I personally can separate the two. If others can, more power to em. I'm not voicing my concerns to dictate to others how they should react to the potential hiring or the hiring should it transpire. That's their business, that's their decisions. But with my own value system and my utter disgust at the totality of the Aldridge scandal I want my team to have no part of it even indirectly. I am deeply concerned about it coming to pass and frankly have few IRL people to talk about it so I've been coming here to vent and vocalize my concern. If others change their feelings on the matter because of what I've said, so what? If others don't care and think I'm being a dork for being so concerned about this, so what?
www.bleachernation.com
