Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 2 months later...
Posted

This is a very familiar, and terrible, story.

Institutions like the Roman Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts were afflicted with this sort of awfulness on a pervasive basis. But the fact is that every institution that offers abusers an opportunity to exert authority (even if it's only some authority) over and have confidential access to vulnerable people (and "vulnerable" can include young adult pro hockey prospects, junior associates in a firm setting, etc.) is susceptible to having this happen.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted

To put the full context to this, that meeting took place on May 23, 2010. That was the day of Game 4 of the Western Conference Finals where the Hawks swept the Sharks. 17 days later, the Hawks lifted the cup. Not to say that Quennville was right to be concerned primarily with team chemistry but you can see where he was coming from.

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted (edited)
  On 10/26/2021 at 8:00 PM, mjd1001 said:

So my question is what happens to Quennville and Cheveldayoff?

Expand  

Can you say Joe Paterno.

The fine is not enough.  Loss of draft picks. Loss of contracts down to 40 from the current 50.  I also like the idea of limiting their cap.

Edited by GASabresIUFAN
  • Like (+1) 3
Posted (edited)
  On 10/26/2021 at 7:50 PM, That Aud Smell said:

This is a very familiar, and terrible, story.

Institutions like the Roman Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts were afflicted with this sort of awfulness on a pervasive basis. But the fact is that every institution that offers abusers an opportunity to exert authority (even if it's only some authority) over and have confidential access to vulnerable people (and "vulnerable" can include young adult pro hockey prospects, junior associates in a firm setting, etc.) is susceptible to having this happen.

Expand  

These are the two things that abusers look for.

Edited by Eleven
  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
  On 10/26/2021 at 8:08 PM, HoosierDaddy said:

To put the full context to this, that meeting took place on May 23, 2010. That was the day of Game 4 of the Western Conference Finals where the Hawks swept the Sharks. 17 days later, the Hawks lifted the cup. Not to say that Quennville was right to be concerned primarily with team chemistry but you can see where he was coming from.

Expand  

I see exactly where he was coming from. Protect the abuser because it would inconvenience him to deal with it. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
  On 10/26/2021 at 8:08 PM, HoosierDaddy said:

To put the full context to this, that meeting took place on May 23, 2010. That was the day of Game 4 of the Western Conference Finals where the Hawks swept the Sharks. 17 days later, the Hawks lifted the cup. Not to say that Quennville was right to be concerned primarily with team chemistry but you can see where he was coming from.

Expand  

Was the video guy gonna ruin chemistry in the room? You tell the team he left for personal reasons and tell the guy to turn his phone off as he’s under investigation. No team chemistry ruined and you’re running a proper investigation. 

  • Like (+1) 3
Posted
  On 10/26/2021 at 10:45 PM, That Aud Smell said:

That’s it, really. Plausible reasons for isolated/one on one time are also important. We must plan accordingly.

Expand  

And this is why your sexual harassment training likely includes the advice that you not meet with a subordinate in private unless there is a window or an open door.

Posted

It was bad enough that this situation wasn't handled properly in Chicago but even worse is that the evil doer was given a recommendation that allowed him to get a job at a school where he abused another person. When an organization doesn't respond properly and quickly when information is learned about an abuse the ripple effect gets wider. The punishment should be more severe. The Q coach may not be in Chicago now but he should be held accountable. 

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
  On 10/27/2021 at 1:24 PM, Eleven said:

And this is why your sexual harassment training likely includes the advice that you not meet with a subordinate in private unless there is a window or an open door.

Expand  

Yep. This gets tricky at times - especially when a closed door is needed to maintain confidentiality.

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...