Q is still a lying piece of crap!

[deytookerjaabs]

"The Meeting."

That's all the evidence you need of culpability.

Speaks volumes about the Wirtz family & top brass at the Blackhawks. The family & McD clearly didn't feel anyone else in the organization should have autonomy over matters as serious as sexual assault etc. More like a mafia than a first world employer.

 

[Chelios]

REGARDLESS, what happened to Kyle Beach was monstrous and he was failed to be protected every step of the way. Q's coaching career and Bowman's involvement in hockey should be a casualty of that. That's reasonable. McDonough was fired and should never be involved in a sport's franchise again (which he probably won't be). Rocky should have stepped down and handed ownership off to his son as well like we saw. What happened to Kyle was a disgrace and there has to be consequences.

"Guilty" is a loose thing in this circumstance anyway. Guilty of knowingly covering up Beach's assault to protect the organization is a lot more disgusting than being guilty of not doing more to protect someone being abused. There's still guilt all around.

To me, there are degrees of guilt and responsibility in this. Of those you mentioned, it seems pretty clear to me based on what is out there that McDonough is at the top of that list. I am 100% behind him never being able to work again in sports. Bowman would be next, and I am back and forth about to what degree he should be punished. As the GM, he obviously should have more of a birds eye view of the entire organization and should have been more involved in looking into the allegations. Having said that it seems, and this was mentioned in the Q interview as well, that there was pretty clear camps within the organization that seemed to work almost independently of one another. You had the coaching staff, the hockey operations and the business side. Bowman, while the head of the hockey ops department, may have felt that the HR part of this was not really under his umbrella and that McDonough would handle it. Q, to me, is at the bottom of this list. If what he says is true, then I really don't think his reaction is as bad as people are making it out to be. If he was told that the video coach was hitting the town with the Rockford players and may have sent an inappropriate text or two, then I really don't think the reaction of "I have a team to coach in the NHL playoffs, I don't want to deal with this right now" is as monstrous as some people are making it out to be. And it is not like he escaped without punishment, even if he is let back in the league he will have been barred from coaching for several years. Assuming what he is saying is the truth, that is a pretty significant punishment for what he did (or more specifically, didn't do).

 

[BHawk21]

Heads gotta roll sometimes man. Even if it's unfair, and that's far from a guarantee with Q & Co., but an example has to be made here because of the severity of what happened and how it was handled. It needs to be known league-wide that this can't ever happen again.

Yea. Easier to say when its not you and cannot be you. I wonder what others in similar jobs around the NHL think. Saying that Im not even sure I disagree with you.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Yea. Easier to say when its not you and cannot be you. I wonder what others in similar jobs around the NHL think.

Q's made millions of dollars, won 3 Cups, and has the 2nd(?) most wins as a coach ever. He's had a long and succesful career, but something tragic happened and it can be argued he should have done more. Sexual assault and manipulation of a coach over a prospect trying to stick in the NHL should never happen. If there aren't consequences then it is less discouraged from happening again. It's bigger than Queneville's career and ability to coach through his late 60's

 

[Pez68]

The NHL is the old boy's club of old boy's clubs. The fact that he's still not back and coaching, and doing interviews with podcasters that pour Busch Light into a cup, should speak volumes.

The guy has still never apologized or accepted any responsibility for one of his direct reports sexually assaulting a player that was practicing with his team.

 

[BHawk21]

Q's made millions of dollars, won 3 Cups, and has the 2nd(?) most wins as a coach ever. He's had a long and succesful career, but something tragic happened and it can be argued he should have done more. Sexual assault and manipulation of a coach over a prospect trying to stick in the NHL should never happen. If there aren't consequences then it is less discouraged from happening again. It's bigger than Queneville's career and ability to coach through his late 60's

none of this matters or should matter.

Sure. but the severity of the punishment matters and should fit with the situation. They dont give someone a life sentence for driving drunk even if that would discourage it from happening again.

The NHL is the old boy's club of old boy's clubs. The fact that he's still not back and coaching, and doing interviews with podcasters that pour Busch Light into a cup, should speak volumes.

The guy has still never apologized or accepted any responsibility for one of his direct reports sexually assaulting a player that was practicing with his team.

what do you mean? did you listen to the interview?

 

[Chelios]

Gary recalled telling everyone in the meeting what he said John Doe told him—that Aldrich was pressuring John Doe to have sex with him and that Aldrich told John Doe that if John Doe did not submit to Aldrich’s advances, he could harm John Doe’s career.

Q is painting it in a way that they were aware of A SITUATION involving BA, but that they thought it wasn't that important and wasn't SA in nature. Gary is saying otherwise. Why would Gary lie? The other people saying they "don't recall" have a lot more to gain by not recalling than Gary has to gain by recalling.

Not going to defend someone if I am unsure if they are innocent.

Again, Q wasn't even there for the entire meeting. If Gary did say that it very well could have been when he was first describing the alleged incident prior to them bringing Q in.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Since Aldrich was video coach, wouldn’t that make Quenneville his direct supervisor? That puts some culpability on him as far as you can’t really take the avoidance “not my issue, McD is handling” stance.

 

[Chelios]

Since Aldrich was video coach, wouldn’t that make Quenneville his direct supervisor? That puts some culpability on him as far as you can’t really take the avoidance “not my issue, McD is handling” stance.

I don't think anyone is saying he shouldn't have any culpability. He should. However, there is a big difference between he should have some culpability and he should never work in hockey again based on what we know.

 

[Giovi]

Since Aldrich was video coach, wouldn’t that make Quenneville his direct supervisor? That puts some culpability on him as far as you can’t really take the avoidance “not my issue, McD is handling” stance.

Not stepping into the whole Q argument except to ask, when have you ever heard of a coach firing an assistant? Its always the GM's job.

 

[TLEH]

Not stepping into the whole Q argument except to ask, when have you ever heard of a coach firing an assistant? Its always the GM's job.

Depends. If the coach is unhappy, he can fire the assistant coach. Generally its more of a power struggle between the GM and coach, where the GM may fire an assistant to get a different voice. Q could absolutely have fired BA if he wanted.

 

[u2wojo]

Ugggggh...It is going to be a LONG offseason if we already starting the annual debates of Beach/Aldrich, Aliu, the Rocky townhall breakdown/seizure. Can we maybe include the debate on bringing back the icecrew girls, specifically if the Hawks would consider a trans member on the team?

 

[ytsejam]

Ugggggh...It is going to be a LONG offseason if we already starting the annual debates of Beach/Aldrich, Aliu, the Rocky townhall breakdown/seizure. Can we maybe include the debate on bringing back the icecrew girls, specifically if the Hawks would consider a trans member on the team?

We need ice girls and Eric Daze back.

 

[TheFridge]

The NHL is the old boy's club of old boy's clubs. The fact that he's still not back and coaching, and doing interviews with podcasters that pour Busch Light into a cup, should speak volumes.

The guy has still never apologized or accepted any responsibility for one of his direct reports sexually assaulting a player that was practicing with his team.

He did accept responsibility for not asking more questions, following up, etc.

Also, Beach wasn't practicing with the team. None of the black aces were. You know that.

 

[ClydeLee]

Not stepping into the whole Q argument except to ask, when have you ever heard of a coach firing an assistant? Its always the GM's job.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/1177379-chicago-blackhawks-joel-quenneville-takes-the-reins-by-firing-mike-haviland.amp.html

With Q himself.

But when the Aldrich topic always comes up, I'm often still disappointed there's little reverence for the other unnamed victims. The other black ace and interns seem just as valid to think were damaged by the inactions

 

[Larmer83]

Again, Q wasn't even there for the entire meeting. If Gary did say that it very well could have been when he was first describing the alleged incident prior to them bringing Q in.

Bowman recalled that, after learning of the incident, Quenneville shook his head and said that it was hard for the team to get to where they were, and they could not deal with this issue now.

In particular, according to the Director of Human Resources, Gary said that during the meeting, Quenneville appeared angry and was concerned about upsetting team chemistry.

McDonough recalled that Quenneville appeared to be agitated.
And Q:

Other participants in the meeting recalled that Quenneville was not present for the first portion of the meeting and was called upstairs to the Front Office to join the meeting after it had started.440 Quenneville recalled others in the meeting stating that “an event happened without saying what happened” and that “something may have happened.” When interviewed, Quenneville stated that he believed that the issue being discussed involved a coach doing something improper and that the group was meeting to decide whether to “make it public.”Quenneville also stated that he did not believe that John Doe’s name was referenced and, after multiple interviews, Quenneville was unclear whether Aldrich’s name was referenced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The idea that Q might not have been in the meeting when Gary discussed the events doesn't pass the smell test. Why would he be "agitated" if he did not know the details? If you're walking into a meeting and late for the start and hear “an event happened without saying what happened” and that “something may have happened” it's incumbent on you to get those details. Especially if the issue involved a coach(a direct report) doing something improper.

 

[crazyhawk]

I vote for changing the name of this thread to " Q's part in the Beach / Aldrich affair "
I find it distasteful to say the least when scanning through the thread titles to find negativity front and centre.

 

[MarotteMarauder]

Thats an interesting use of bolding. Did you miss the last line in what you quoted: "None of the participants recalled being told about the type of clearly non-consensual sexual conduct that is described byJohn Doe in his lawsuit or was described during John Doe’s interview with us". You also are leaving out the fact that Q was not in attendance for the entire meeting. There may have been details discussed before he entered the meeting that were not relayed to him once he was called in.

Q wasn't there for the entire meeting, according to whom? Q

He downplayed seemingly any details about BAldrich. Just a video coach, wasn't really needed, we would have won if he was canned or not blah, blah, blah. If memory serves, BAldrich was a direct hire by Q.

We need not relitigate the entire history. Suffice it to say the league looked into the situation and launched Q. He should just disappear ala Stan and McD.

That interview DID NOT help him get reinstated IMO. I wouldn't want him anywhere near my club.

 

[Chelios]

Q wasn't there for the entire meeting, according to whom? Q

Actually according to others in the meeting:

Other participants in the meeting recalled that Quenneville was not present for the first portion of the meeting and was called upstairs to the Front Office to join the meeting after it had started

 

[Chelios]

The idea that Q might not have been in the meeting when Gary discussed the events doesn't pass the smell test. Why would he be "agitated" if he did not know the details? If you're walking into a meeting and late for the start and hear “an event happened without saying what happened” and that “something may have happened” it's incumbent on you to get those details. Especially if the issue involved a coach(a direct report) doing something improper.

If he was only given vague info, then it would make even more sense that he was agitated. If all he was told was that the video coach was out drinking with the Rockford players and being creepy, it wouldn't be that far fetched that he was annoyed that this was something being brought to him at that point in the playoffs.

 

[Larmer83]

If he was only given vague info, then it would make even more sense that he was agitated. If all he was told was that the video coach was out drinking with the Rockford players and being creepy, it wouldn't be that far fetched that he was annoyed that this was something being brought to him at that point in the playoffs.

Sure. Go with that and you're basically saying Q chose to be willfully ignorant. He never struck me to be that type of individual.

 

[MarotteMarauder]

Actually according to others in the meeting:

And Q was never brought up to speed? Not credible.

 

[Chelios]

And Q was never brought up to speed? Not credible.

Depends what your definition of “up to speed” is. Obviously, he was given some details. But it is not unreasonable to think that if he was not there when the situation was originally described, he may have just been given the coles notes version and not all the details.

 

[ChiHawks10]

Imagine defending this guy to this end.

What the f*** for?

He's out of hockey, and IMO deservedly so. The NHL decides if he can ever come back. Simple as that.

 

[Chelios]

Sure. Go with that and you're basically saying Q chose to be willfully ignorant. He never struck me to be that type of individual.

I think it is very likely that there was an aspect of willful ignorance at play. Which is why I don’t think Q is without fault in this situation. I just think there is a big difference between that and “he should never be allowed to coach again” based on what we know.