The Decline of Vladimir Krutov

[jarek]

I'd like to once again point out, and I can only speak for myself, that a large part of the reason that Krutov is looked down upon in the ATD is his utterly disastrous attempted transition to the NHL. Why that happened is irrelevant, what IS relevant is that he failed miserably in the NHL.

 

[jkrx]

I'd suggest you go find the Willies interview, yourself, BC. It's been posted many times on hfboards. I'm not going to do the work for you.



So have you read the interview, or have you not? Sounds like you have read it.

At any rate, this is completely meaningless. Again, we trip over false ideas about standards of proof. No one has to "prove" anything for us to discuss it and take it into account in the ATD. What-x-said-about-y is about 90% of the evidence we use around here beyond raw statistics. To attempt to throw out or undermine the validity of this sort of evidence only in the case of Krutov is just silly. If you don't like he-said-she-said arguments, I suggest you start by never opening another ATD bio thread again.

Nothing that's been discussed here today is news; the quotes from Larionov's biography have been around for a long time. This is just the same old people airing the same old grievances about how awful it is that the same standards of evidence we apply to discussions of all players cause us to pose hard questions about the quality of Vladimir Krutov's career. Oh, the humanity.

I don't know about anyone else but I see a pretty big difference between Scotty Bowman or Dick Irvin saying a player was good without the puck and a journalist printing some speculation from staff or players about doping.

When it comes to that kind of accusations you are damn right that there is a burden of proof.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

I don't doubt that Krutov was poor in the NHL, but let's not pretend that he put up zero points. He scored at a .56 PPG clip that season, and Larionov was only at .59, hardly a world's difference.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't doubt that Krutov was poor in the NHL, but let's not pretend that he put up zero points. He scored at a .56 PPG clip that season, and Larionov was only at .59, hardly a world's difference.

Larionov was a very respectable checking type player even as his offense struggled, while Krutov ended the season in the minors.

 

[BraveCanadian]

So have you read the interview, or have you not? Sounds like you have read it.

Yes, I did and so I know how flimsy it is as reasoning for Krutov's decline in comparison to his very well documented problems adjusting to North America.

At any rate, this is completely meaningless. Again, we trip over false ideas about standards of proof. No one has to "prove" anything for us to discuss it and take it into account in the ATD. What-x-said-about-y is about 90% of the evidence we use around here beyond raw statistics. To attempt to throw out or undermine the validity of this sort of evidence only in the case of Krutov is just silly. If you don't like he-said-she-said arguments, I suggest you start by never opening another ATD bio thread again.

I'll just take the more reasonable and much better documented explanation that doesn't single out one player of a group for extra suspicion by also considering they had all been playing under the exact same circumstances, thanks.

I'd like to once again point out, and I can only speak for myself, that a large part of the reason that Krutov is looked down upon in the ATD is his utterly disastrous attempted transition to the NHL. Why that happened is irrelevant, what IS relevant is that he failed miserably in the NHL.

I think this is the only point that is relevant to the ATD. He declined earlier than the others and therefore has less career value than his great peak would suggest. Fair enough.

I don't know about anyone else but I see a pretty big difference between Scotty Bowman or Dick Irvin saying a player was good without the puck and a journalist printing some speculation from staff or players about doping.

When it comes to that kind of accusations you are damn right that there is a burden of proof.

Agreed. Not to mention the amount out there regarding his problems adjusting to North America due to language, culture and a love of fast food in comparison with the doping allegations is pretty overwhelming.

I don't doubt that Krutov was poor in the NHL, but let's not pretend that he put up zero points. He scored at a .56 PPG clip that season, and Larionov was only at .59, hardly a world's difference.

I think the problem is that, if I recall, Krutov got progessively worse as his off-ice problems took hold while Larionov, who had better English skills and was decidedly more worldly than Krutov, adjusted more successfully.

 

[Sturminator]

I don't know about anyone else but I see a pretty big difference between Scotty Bowman or Dick Irvin saying a player was good without the puck and a journalist printing some speculation from staff or players about doping.

Again, you do not seem to understand the meaning of the word "speculation". What Willies claimed is that Larionov told someone, either him, the Canucks trainers, or both, that the reason for Krutov's pitiful performance in Vancouver is that he was off the juice. This is not speculation, but rather a claim to fact.

Whether or not what Willies asserts is actually true is another matter, but true or false, it is not speculation. That's not what the word means.

 

[Sturminator]

Yes, I did and so I know how flimsy it is as reasoning for Krutov's decline in comparison to his very well documented problems adjusting to North America.

Really? You think hamburgers are a better explanation for the fact that Krutov was weak as a kitten in a Canucks sweater when he had been, mere months before, one of the most fearsome players in the world?

Sure thing.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Really? You think hamburgers are a better explanation for the fact that Krutov was weak as a kitten in a Canucks sweater when he had been, mere months before, one of the most fearsome players in the world?

Sure thing.

You can pack on a lot of pounds in a few months when you come off a strictly regimented physical fitness (and life) plan and go to a place where you are lonely and don't speak the language to eat hotdogs.. I don't think this should be a surprising fact to anyone here.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Really? You think hamburgers are a better explanation for the fact that Krutov was weak as a kitten in a Canucks sweater when he had been, mere months before, one of the most fearsome players in the world?

Sure thing.

In the wingers project, there were sources provided that Krutov may have basically been in an alcoholic stupor his entire time in North America.

 

[seventieslord]

How tiresome that year-after-year the word "libel" gets thrown around with regards to discussions of Krutov. If the accusations against Krutov constitute libel, why was there never a case filed against Ed Gilles, the man who first made them public? Any of Krutov, Larionov or the Vancouver Canucks could have sued Gilles and likely won if he had published falsehoods, and yet none of those parties has ever made any attempt to rebut his claims.

Conflating the standards of evidence required in a criminal trial with those required in a historical discussion is patently foolish. Any thinking person should know better.

Ed Willes

No one has to "prove" anything for us to discuss it and take it into account in the ATD. What-x-said-about-y is about 90% of the evidence we use around here beyond raw statistics. To attempt to throw out or undermine the validity of this sort of evidence only in the case of Krutov is just silly. If you don't like he-said-she-said arguments, I suggest you start by never opening another ATD bio thread again.

Yep. Couldn't be more true.

 

[jkrx]

Again, you do not seem to understand the meaning of the word "speculation". What Willies claimed is that Larionov told someone, either him, the Canucks trainers, or both, that the reason for Krutov's pitiful performance in Vancouver is that he was off the juice. This is not speculation, but rather a claim to fact.

Whether or not what Willies asserts is actually true is another matter, but true or false, it is not speculation. That's not what the word means.

Let's turn this around on you again. Did Larionov confirm that he said this? Because if he didn't, then yes, it is speculation (or blatant lying from Willes sources in this case). It doesn't really matter. You believe Heatley is a better player which is just...

I've read one interview with Larionov that he did while in Detroit where he denies it. If you don't believe that, since I can't find it. There is two quotes from a couple of books. One is the Larionov book where he denies that he and the rest of the green line took anything and the other book "Gretzky to Lemieux: The Story of the 1987 Canada Cup" where he is adamant about that he didn't know what was in the injections and that the green unit didn't take any.

Krutov himself denied the allegations when he arrived in Sweden.

http://www.dn.se/arkiv/sport/nu-ar-krutov-bara-en-i-mangden-forre-varldsstjarnan-talar

...and Larionov also claimed that they were subjected to doping against their will. Krutov have no experience of doping .

- I do not know what Larionov meant by allegations of doping . I have always left samples and inspected at World Championships and Olympic tournaments but never caught.

Good coach. . .

- Sure , we got glykos pills and vitamins but I do not call for doping , says Krutov...

They might have got some performance enhancers but where is the evidence that they were illegal? There is a lot of legal performance enhancers and most of them is classified as a grey zone of doping. Thyroid hormones being one of them.

Another fact that comes into light in that interview is that Krutov didn't want to sign with the NHL. He wanted to play in europe but the sports magistrate forced him over. So there you have it. An unmotivated alcoholic who gets lots of cash and no guidance. Spells disaster to me.

 

[Sturminator]

Let's turn this around on you again. Did Larionov confirm that he said this? Because if he didn't, then yes, it is speculation (or blatant lying from Willes sources in this case).

But...wait...wut? You're not moving the goalposts here; you're trying to steal them and sell them for scrap. Do you want a signed affidavit from Larionov, or something? And around we go again with perverse standards for evidence applied to Krutov, and Krutov, alone. At least you're consistent.

And no...sorry, I'm not going to just take you at your word that you saw an interview once where Larionov denies what Willes claims he said. If you want to present that interview, please do so. Until then, it is not relevant to the conversation.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

At this point, do any of you think you're going to convince each other about the validity of the allegations against Krutov?

 

[jkrx]

At this point, do any of you think you're going to convince each other about the validity of the allegations against Krutov?

No and since Sturm decides what arguments he can counter and ignores the rest I'll leave it as it is clear e has very little ground to stand on.

 

[Sturminator]

At this point, do any of you think you're going to convince each other about the validity of the allegations against Krutov?

My own personal ATD Groundhog Day, just as acrimonious and inconclusive as ever. New information about Krutov would be refreshing, but until then, let's try to change people's minds by getting really mad!

 

[jkrx]

My own personal ATD Groundhog Day, just as acrimonious and inconclusive as ever. New information about Krutov would be refreshing, but until then, let's try to change people's minds by getting really mad!

Who's getting really mad? Both me and BraveCanadian gave you some ratinal arguments. You simply chose to ignore them and continue on a one-way train of thought.

 

[Sturminator]

Who's getting really mad? Both me and BraveCanadian gave you some ratinal arguments. You simply chose to ignore them and continue on a one-way train of thought.

 

[VMBM]

Hockey history is littered with similarly gifted players who did not succeed at the highest level because they lacked the "toolbox" to go along with their tools. If you think Krutov's famous strength (which strangely disappeared in Vancouver) wasn't a major advantage for him as a player, I'm not sure the word ignorant does that position justice.

You can be as mad about it as you want, but that won't change the fact that there are very real and serious questions about Krutov's career in light of the allegations and the circumstantial evidence surrounding his precipitous fall from grace.

Yeah, I'm, like, really mad, like.

Highest level? Oh, I think he reached the highest level around the 1987 Canada Cup, when he was considered the best player in Europe even by Canadian media. Better than Makarov, Fetisov etc.

And what, is HFBoards supposed to be LA friggin' Law or something? Okay, I'll play along.

Whatever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty". I'd say you are still far far away from proving that he took steroids. (Although I can see that you don't feel that you even need to, whatever.) Of course, each 'juror' to his own. But the fact remains that Krutov was never caught cheating, and neither was any other Soviet great, even though notable Finnish and Swedish players (e.g. Juhani Tamminen and Anders Hedberg) have stated publicly that the Soviets were (generally) using illicit drugs - without naming any specific names and, of course, not providing any true evidence.

Is there even proof that Krutov knew about that piece by this Willes, or (if he did) that he gave a damn? Are there any interviews where Krutov is confronted with this issue? Was it a big news in the (hockey) world?

BTW, I was talking about people who have made suggestions à la "product of steroids" and/or "weakest link on KLM", which is, yes, simply ignorant, and certainly not very truthful, when one has truly watched him play and has bothered to look at his accolades & stats. But hey, íf the shoe fits, wear it.

 

[VMBM]

Is there even proof that Krutov knew about that piece by this Willes, or (if he did) that he gave a damn? Are there any interviews where Krutov is confronted with this issue? Was it a big news in the (hockey) world?

Okay, I read that interview (in Swedish) with Krutov. When he says that "I don't know what Larionov meant by those allegations about doping", he is apparently referring to a TV interview that Larionov gave where he talked about injections given to Soviet players and cheating in the drug tests... or to Larionov's book... or both. But it has nothing to do with Willes' book.

Here's also a question that bothers me: if Krutov was all about steroids, why didn't he just return to the Soviet Union and 'get back on the juice' and just continue his succesful career there? You'd think that it would have been that simple, if the steroids 'made him the player that he was'. But no, he never even became a decent player post-1989, which simply suggests that he was totally shot.

 

[Sturminator]

And what, is HFBoards supposed to be LA friggin' Law or something?

The only people trying to "play lawyer" around here are the ones defending Krutov.

Whatever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty". I'd say you are still far far away from proving that he took steroids.

Case in point. Again and again, Krutov's defenders try to shield him behind the standard of proof which applies in criminal trials...and then accuse me of making legalistic arguments. You could cut the irony with a knife.

This is not a court of law. When making evaluations of Krutov's career (or anyone else's), conclusive proof is not necessary for us to take the possibility of x, y and z into account. In Krutov's case, the rather strong possibility that he used steroids is part of that equation. If you think concrete proof is necessary for us to make a judgment here, you simply don't understand the process.

 

[Sturminator]

Here's also a question that bothers me: if Krutov was all about steroids, why didn't he just return to the Soviet Union and 'get back on the juice' and just continue his succesful career there?

The collapse of the Soviet Union, the Soviet hockey program, and the Russian economy probably had a lot to do with all of that. In all likelihood, Krutov quite rationally wanted to earn as much money as possible while he still had some hockey left in him (and no one can fault him for that). That wasn't going to happen in Russia.

 

[VMBM]

I think this is the only point that is relevant to the ATD. He declined earlier than the others and therefore has less career value than his great peak would suggest. Fair enough.

Yes, it is fair enough. Although I would just point out that Krutov was a Soviet national team level player already as a 19-year old, which was pretty rare among the Soviets. And if the 1980 Team USA (Dave Silk particulary) is to be believed, at 19 he was their best player in Lake Placid:

From the article "Miracle On Ice: American Hockey's Defining Moment" by Jamie Fitzpatrick http://proicehockey.about.com/cs/history/a/miracle_on_ice_2.htm

In the final 20 minutes, a pillar of the Brooks strategy – speed – came to the fore. Tikhonov relied heavily on veterans like Kharlamov and Mikhailov, players the Americans could catch. “Dave Silk remembers looking across the faceoff circle, hoping the face he saw would not be that of a Krutov, the player the Americans feared most, or Makarov,†writes Lawrence Martin in The Red Machine. “In the third period, his wish was continuously being granted. He would see the veteran Mikhailov, and Silk knew he could skate past him.â€

 

[VMBM]

The only people trying to "play lawyer" around here are the ones defending Krutov.

Case in point. Again and again, Krutov's defenders try to shield him behind the standard of proof which applies in criminal trials...and then accuse me of making legalistic arguments. You could cut the irony with a knife.

This is not a court of law. When making evaluations of Krutov's career (or anyone else's), conclusive proof is not necessary for us to take the possibility of x, y and z into account. In Krutov's case, the rather strong possibility that he used steroids is part of that equation. If you think concrete proof is necessary for us to make a judgment here, you simply don't understand the process.

No no, you're the 'Chief Prosecutor' here, don't be ashamed of your title.

Concrete proof? No, I'd just like better proof (i.e. so that Krutov's career should be judged by wildly different standards than other Soviet players' careers). Mainly because (yes, here it is again) I watched Krutov all of his career, and to me "his famous strength" was not the be-all and end-all of his game. Right now, I think we have more, er, reason to believe that all Soviet players were given 'mysterious injections' (Larionov saying that in an interview & IIRC, in his book) than that (only) Krutov took steroids (a journalist claiming that Larionov had said that to somebody).

 

[Sturminator]

No no, you're the 'Chief Prosecutor' here, don't be ashamed of your title.

Cool story, bro.

Calling me names is helping you win the internet argument! I think I preferred "ignoramus", though; it's got more of a Latin ring to it.

Mainly because (yes, here it is again) I watched Krutov all of his career, and to me "his famous strength" was not the be-all and end-all of his game.

You seem to be under the impression that I didn't watch Krutov's international career. I don't know where you get that idea. No one has ever claimed that strength was the only quality Krutov had, but strength of the type he possessed is extremely rare in a man of his size, and yeah...it made a big difference in his performance.

 

[VMBM]

Cool story, bro.

Calling me names is helping you win the internet argument! I think I preferred "ignoramus", though; it's got more of a Latin ring to it.

This is what I said:

If he had been really one-dimensional 'workhorse', I would maybe think differently, but he wasn't, and only an ignoramus would claim so.

You really identify yourself from that???

Namely, I think I could definitely be accused of a sort of straw-man there (i.e. since no one had claimed here that Krutov was a "one-dimensional 'workhorse'"), but not really of calling you names. I did say later on that "if the shoe fits, wear it", since you seemed to think (?) that the 'ignoramus' was directed at you.

I could also be blamed for starting this OT thing, since it was me who first voiced my little displeasure of your summary (vis-à-vis Krutov).

For the record, I generally like your posts and your enthusiasm for old European/international hockey (can't be bad!) but not your handling of Krutov, who in my book was and remains a great player, unless something really drastic comes up.