He absolutely WAS in a position of authority that the decade old accusation happened. And as we've established by precedent, that's still recent enough to destroy a career.
If you don't? Well, Jarret Spurgeon is a white male who is by all accounts 100% non-diverse in every other demographic category. You want to chum the waters in the "I TOLD you it's 'no bad tactics, only bad targets'!" pool? Cause that's how chum those waters.
The NHL has made clear what the rules are. Apply them consistently or get ready for **** to get worse before it gets better.
I just posted that firing him would be an overreaction. Firing him for his little story would be. But others have been fired for actions of 10 years ago and firing him for his part in the original incident might be another story. It would at least be somewhat consistent.
I have a little trouble with raking up incidents from years ago, especially to a time when they were generally accepted. In this case, telling that story would seem to indicate that he has not learned or changed his attitude so maybe firing is appropriate.
Does his role in that incident mean he is never to be allowed to work again? Does the punishment fit the crime? I'm not sure of the right place to draw the lines. He was in a position of authority at the time but he is not now. But he is now a public figure who might be considered to have some influence, however small.