Blackhawks refused to report alleged sex abuse of players to police: source

[herman]

I'm not sure why Bettman has to apologize to Beach.

Campbell's contention was more about media positioning Bettman's statements as an apology.

As for whether an apology is actually owed, I believe what is truly owed is a thorough audit and subsequent action to ensure the League has the mechanisms and people in place where such a violation and dereliction of duty does not happen again. Not only is it the right thing, but for the future protection of the League's reputation. The NHLPA doing the same can only be a good thing. They're not going to be doing that under Bettman, as his modus operandi is to try to keep things quiet and boring.

Poop rolls to the top, and the League is responsible for the conduct, and to some degree the culture, of its franchises. What has come to a head in this case is the decades of general coverup of issues (domestic issues, substance abuses, assaults) leading to the series of wrong decisions the Chicago hockey organization undertook regarding Aldrich's abuses.

[herman]

Ah case in point:
https://twitter.com/mikeystephens81/status/1455603233406193667

[Nik]

I'm not sure what to make of this, but Fehr himself is recommending an "independent investigation, into how the PA handled the Beach call for help.

According to the Blackhawks' report, Fehr got 2 separate phone calls on the matter, and says he doesn't remember the calls.

So...why have an investigation when the buck stops at Fehr anyways?

To identify any other failings from the PA on the matter - who else knew and could have acted, what they knew, etc. - and how the PA can improve in those areas.

The buck stops with Fehr, but a lot can go wrong before it gets to him. Need to make sure those issues are ironed out.

Fehr isn't CEO of the Player's Association. He works for the players. While obviously the PA has a responsibility to Beach and they, including Fehr, certainly seem to have failed him in this regard the reality is that the "buck" doesn't stop with Fehr in the same way that it might with Bettman and the NHL because, unlike the Commissioner's office, there is no pretension that by being the Director of the Player's Union that Fehr is the boss of the Players. If it were then everything the owners said about the PA during negotiations, that players were just thralls to the Union Goons dictating their moves, would be true.

Any union, its policies and practices, are as good as its members in it. If there was a real problem with how this information got to the union and how it was acted upon within then there's certainly enough blame to go around, and you certainly could argue it should cost Fehr his job, but it's really not Fehr's job to decide on union structure or policy.

[Nik]

I'm not sure why Bettman has to apologize to Beach.

I don't know that he "has" to necessarily but I suppose it depends on what extent you think Bettman is responsible for the NHL as a whole and, as commissioner, is still ultimately institutionally responsible for franchises like the Blackhawks.

[Bullfrog]

I don't necessarily disagree, but ultimately I find it hard to pass the buck at all beyond the Blackhawks, a large organization with its own corporate structure, including an HR department and clearly articulated policies.

The Fehr situation is a bit tricky. He was the ED for only a week or two when the assault was reported to the NHLPA and Beach wasn't an NHLPA member. Again, as with everyone else, those aren't excuses but are factors in the story of how Beach was failed.

[Nik]

I don't necessarily disagree, but ultimately I find it hard to pass the buck at all beyond the Blackhawks, a large organization with its own corporate structure, including an HR department and clearly articulated policies.

It's only "passing the buck" if you think that Bettman acknowledging that the Blackhawks are part of the league that he's institutionally responsible for somehow absolves the Blackhawks of their specific responsibilities.

There's an analogy I'm fairly reluctant to use but imagine, if you will, a large religious organization who as a matter of structure elects a supreme head of their faith and then runs into some trouble when official members of that organization commit many, many bad acts over the centuries. The current Supreme Head of that Faith might feel compelled to apologize for the institutional responsibility his organization had without ignoring the culpability of the individual bad actors.

[Bender]

I don't necessarily disagree, but ultimately I find it hard to pass the buck at all beyond the Blackhawks, a large organization with its own corporate structure, including an HR department and clearly articulated policies.

It's only "passing the buck" if you think that Bettman acknowledging that the Blackhawks are part of the league that he's institutionally responsible for somehow absolves the Blackhawks of their specific responsibilities.

There's an analogy I'm fairly reluctant to use but imagine, if you will, a large religious organization who as a matter of structure elects a supreme head of their faith and then runs into some trouble when official members of that organization commit many, many bad acts over the centuries. The current Supreme Head of that Faith might feel compelled to apologize for the institutional responsibility his organization had without ignoring the culpability of the individual bad actors.

You couldn't have been that reluctant .

But seriously, I'm onside here. Bettman apologizing doesn't mean he has any truly direct wrong doing or admission of guilt. It represents a an apology on behalf of the league itself since he is the head of the league.

[Nik]

You couldn't have been that reluctant .

Luckily I was able to come up with a hypothetical.

[Heroic Shrimp]

https://twitter.com/ConorRyan_93/status/1455568645946494976

A rare moment that I don't hate the Bruins.

[L K]

I didn't dislike anything that was said by Cheveldayoff and Chipman at their press conference yesterday.

Perhaps the one thing I think still outstanding on this whole affair is that there really should be a policy for these kinds of investigations to be done by an independent third party.  I don't know that this would have really changed any of the findings but this notion of investigation of ourselves led to this type of event taking 11 years to reach part of an outcome.

[Bullfrog]

I don't necessarily disagree, but ultimately I find it hard to pass the buck at all beyond the Blackhawks, a large organization with its own corporate structure, including an HR department and clearly articulated policies.

It's only "passing the buck" if you think that Bettman acknowledging that the Blackhawks are part of the league that he's institutionally responsible for somehow absolves the Blackhawks of their specific responsibilities.

There's an analogy I'm fairly reluctant to use but imagine, if you will, a large religious organization who as a matter of structure elects a supreme head of their faith and then runs into some trouble when official members of that organization commit many, many bad acts over the centuries. The current Supreme Head of that Faith might feel compelled to apologize for the institutional responsibility his organization had without ignoring the culpability of the individual bad actors.

I get what you're saying, and your hypothetical is an interesting analogy. Major difference is that in Bettman/NHL's case, they didn't know. In your hypothetical religious organization, they've known for decades.

I do think Bettman could apologize for not being more proactive in addressing the hockey culture that allows this to continue.

[OldTimeHockey]

Ultimately, Bettman is responsible. Responsible in that he should be fired? No. Responsible in that he's the leader of the group, yes.

You are correct that he didn't know. But as a manager, some of the blame falls on him for not knowing.

[Bullfrog]

I suppose I just have a different view of his role and of the NHL in general. He's not a manager in any way that I see it.
I see the NHL as more of a collection of 32 independent organizations that collectively belong to the NHL. I think the NHL certainly has influence over the broader culture of hockey and that culture contributes to situations like this where a player doesn't feel safe reporting things.

I also see someone like Bettman apologizing as hollow and meaningless, and that's probably a big part of my opposition. When Dubas fesses up to something that clearly wasn't his fault (as he often does), it actually quite bothers me.

[Nik]

I get what you're saying, and your hypothetical is an interesting analogy. Major difference is that in Bettman/NHL's case, they didn't know. In your hypothetical religious organization, they've known for decades.

But in a way that's my point. The hypothetical current head of said religious institution may not be, as far as we know, personally culpable in some of these misdeeds but his apologies are on behalf of the institution rather than of a personal failing. I appreciate the extent to which the Blackhawks are part of the NHL as a hierarchical structure is not a perfect analogy to my entirely hypothetical religious body but like you say it's very hard to argue that the Blackhawks' decision was not a result of the existing hockey culture that someone like Bettman would have to be pretty willfully blind to have not known.

I mean, you know, the fact that the NHL has the power to fine the Blackhawks is a pretty strong indication that they are, at least in part, the authoritative body here and Bettman as the commissioner is at least the figurehead of that organization.

[OldTimeHockey]

I suppose I just have a different view of his role and of the NHL in general. He's not a manager in any way that I see it.
I see the NHL as more of a collection of 32 independent organizations that collectively belong to the NHL. I think the NHL certainly has influence over the broader culture of hockey and that culture contributes to situations like this where a player doesn't feel safe reporting things.

I also see someone like Bettman apologizing as hollow and meaningless, and that's probably a big part of my opposition. When Dubas fesses up to something that clearly wasn't his fault (as he often does), it actually quite bothers me.

I suppose that all depends on what the responsibilities of a manager or commissioner are. I've always believed that if something happens under my watch as a manager, I am ultimately responsible. In the case of Bettman, he may not have been involved personally in creating the toxic hockey culture that is on full display in Chicago, but when he takes on the leadership role of the "company" he is ultimately responsible for recognizing and repairing the short comings of the group he is leading.

If Bettman apologizes and walks away saying "good enough" then his apology is hollow. If, with his apology comes a plan of repairing this toxic situation and they follow through on it, then his apology has merit.

I think looking at this as a solely "Chicago problem" is a little narrow minded. This is a hockey problem. Bettman and the other NHL leaders play a big part in trying to correct this. It starts with doing whatever they can to help Kyle Beach.