Chicago Blackhawks Sexual Assault Allegations

[bunomatic]

3 hours ago, Weave said:

So not during the big cover up?

I think the assaults allegedly happened in 2010.

[LGR4GM]

 

[LGR4GM]

 

 

[LGR4GM]

Blackhawks will be fined 2million dollars by the league

 

[LGR4GM]

 

[nfreeman]

Wow.

[steveoath]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

 

Didn't quenneville deny knowledge earlier this summer? 

[That Aud Smell]

27 minutes ago, steveoath said:

Didn't quenneville deny knowledge earlier this summer? 

he did.

[That Aud Smell]

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.

[steveoath]

More concerned with team chemistry apparently. Not a good look for Quenneville 😬

[MattPie]

Now, if they took that $2M off the Hawks' salary cap for a few years, that'd actually be a punishment.

[steveoath]

1 minute ago, MattPie said:

Now, if they took that $2M off the Hawks' salary cap for a few years, that'd actually be a punishment.

Or don't allow them to buyout or trade Seth Jones!!

[mjd1001]

So my question is what happens to Quennville and Cheveldayoff?

[HoosierDaddy]

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.

[GASabresIUFAN]

17 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

So my question is what happens to Quennville and Cheveldayoff?

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 October 26, 2021 by GASabresIUFAN

[LGR4GM]

It is ridiculous the Hawks are not being forced to forfeit a pick over this. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

58 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

It is ridiculous the Hawks are not being forced to forfeit a pick over this. 

They should lose one pick for every year they covered it up

[Eleven]

2 hours ago, 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.

These are the two things that abusers look for.

Edited October 26, 2021 by Eleven

[LGR4GM]

2 hours ago, 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.

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

[That Aud Smell]

22 minutes ago, Eleven said:

These are the two things that abusers look for.

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

[aristocrat]

8 hours ago, 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.

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. 

[Eleven]

14 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

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

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.

[JohnC]

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. 

[That Aud Smell]

18 minutes ago, 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.

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

[Eleven]

5 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

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

We've come full-circle; now we're using secret cameras to prove that we're NOT pervs.