Quenneville discussed John Doe sexual assault incident with other CHI executives

[Clint]

I haven't seen anything on the topic posted here but feel like maybe it's something we should start keeping an eye on, especially considering very disconcerting allegations continue to come to light regarding who knew what and when, and what the 2010 Chicago Blackhawks coaching staff and management did or didn't do in response. I'm not laying blame, pointing fingers, or implying that I know all of the facts but it's a serious issue that either directly or indirectly involves our Head Coach so I think it's something we should keep abreast of.

Click to read more...

 

[SoupyFIN]

As no evidence of Q's involvement has been presented at this point in time, speculating what-if's is a can of worms we'd rather not open.

There's the main board thread about the topic (and this is a very serious and important topic, don't get me wrong), we'll revisit this if new information arises implicating personnel working for our organization.

 

[SoupyFIN]

Making his first public comments since the suits were filed, Quenneville called the allegations "clearly serious.''

"I first learned of these allegations through the media earlier this summer,'' Quenneville said Tuesday in a statement provided by the Panthers. "I have contacted the Blackhawks organization to let them know I will support and participate in the independent review. Out of respect for all those involved, I won't comment further while this matter is before the courts.''

 

[Jean Luc Discard]

Q siding with the Hawks org is an interesting alignment from his part when you consider him taking pride on being a players' coach. I reckon that's the only course of action for him since standing with the players involved would entail that he knew exactly what was going on, stood silent and condoned it. I don't see how this is going to end well for the Hawks org and Q just based on the PR damage.

 

[SoupyFIN]

Q siding with the Hawks org

The statement didn't use the greatest phrasing, but I think what he meant was that he'll be available for questions etc.

 

[Jean Luc Discard]

The statement didn't use the greatest phrasing, but I think what he meant was that he'll be available for questions etc.

Since the "independent" investigation is financed by the Hawks so there's automatically a conflict of interest and thus the investigation isn't independent. So the legal proceedings starts off with a spin doctoring attempt by the Hawks.

 

[KW]

I’m not ready to pick sides quite yet. As usual, agendas get thrown out and we’re supposed to believe one side or the other, immediately. Well sorry, f that. The few articles I’ve read don’t give me enough to go on to draw a conclusion one way or another. I actually believe in the concept that both sides get to present their cases and if we want to behave like we’re on the jury then we need to hear both sides. In that light, Q’s statement does not implicate anyone or exonerate anyone. He’s simply saying he’s willing to participate in the process, which he probably would be called on to do anyway, so the voluntary statement is fine by me.

 

[drktmplr12]

Since the "independent" investigation is financed by the Hawks so there's automatically a conflict of interest and thus the investigation isn't independent. So the legal proceedings starts off with a spin doctoring attempt by the Hawks.

who then should pay for it?

a third party can remain unbiased and independent. read the contract.

 

[Jean Luc Discard]

who then should pay for it?

a third party can remain unbiased and independent. read the contract.

I'm not sure why there needs to be one if nothing else then as a PR stunt. If it's a court case then lawyer up, collect the evidence, prepare your case and present it to the judge. Who cares what some spin doctor 3rd party has to say about it at that point.

 

[drktmplr12]

I'm not sure why there needs to be one if nothing else then as a PR stunt. If it's a court case then lawyer up, collect the evidence, prepare your case and present it to the judge. Who cares what some spin doctor 3rd party has to say about it at that point.

i think its cynical to call it a PR "spin doctor" stunt considering the age we live in-it's a standard procedure and expected.

i would say a great many people care what some spin doctor 3rd party has to say. they are a very public entity involved in children's hospitals, charities, community outreach. the organization can't just sit idle and not look into it further, expecting the courts and lawyers to do it for them. the report can enable the organization to identify any impropriety on their part, very possible people will be held accountable, even if they did nothing illegal in the eyes of a court. possibly no one will be held accountable. to do nothing would be viewed as complacent.

it won't make any victim feel better I can tell you that.

 

[Prominence Problem]

who then should pay for it?

a third party can remain unbiased and independent. read the contract.

?

 

[WaitingForThatCab]

When you pay for an investigation, you expect the investigation to try to find evidence that is sympathetic to you. That's just reality.

With that said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Quenneville making himself available to answer questions, regardless of who is financing this.

 

[BeezKnees]

With that said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Quenneville making himself available to answer questions, regardless of who is financing this.

It would be much more concerning if he refused.

 

[Jean Luc Discard]

It would be much more concerning if he refused.

Ofc he's going to play ball because he doesn't want to tarnish his reputation, he gets show loyalty to his former employer and rehearse his statements with the rest of the accused party before the court hearings begins. He's not under oath so his answers do not matter.

 

[KW]

Ofc he's going to play ball because he doesn't want to tarnish his reputation, he gets show loyalty to his former employer and rehearse his statements with the rest of the accused party before the court hearings begins. He's not under oath so his answers do not matter.

Well yeah possibly, but that’s speculation and the other side of that coin is that the legal standard is “innocent until proven guilty”. I certainly think that principle applies to coach Q, and not only in the legal sense but also ethically outside of it.

 

[drktmplr12]

pretty disgusting stuff here. allegations at this point.

not a good look that coaching staff would (allegedly) allow another to incite homophobic slurs.

 

[ProjectPanthers]

Ya this is not looking good for Q. I'll be shocked if he doesn't face some sort of repercussions for this. I mean, deny deny deny but if they find evidence he could be in trouble.

Pretty disappointed by all of this to be honest. I know hockey culture is gross (especially in the locker rooms, witnessed it first hand) but this is far beyond even petty name calling.

Even if it means losing Coach Q I hope heads role. This kind of shit is absolutely deplorable.

 

[SoupyFIN]

not a good look that coaching staff would (allegedly) allow another to incite homophobic slurs.

Sadly this reflects more on the sport as a whole, rather than just one specific group.

It doesn't look good for Q, but we'd probably find skeletons like this (allowing the players to use homophobic slurs) from every coach's closet that's been coaching for more than 5 years. It's been a part of rah rah hockey macho culture since the beginning and just now recently it's starting to get phased out, at least on the surface.

 

[Gentle Man]

Sadly this reflects more on the sport as a whole, rather than just one specific group.

It doesn't look good for Q, but we'd probably find skeletons like this (allowing the players to use homophobic slurs) from every coach's closet that's been coaching for more than 5 years. It's been a part of rah rah hockey macho culture since the beginning and just now recently it's starting to get phased out, at least on the surface.

I echo this..

It's no excuse, but lets be real. Anyone that was born a part of sports before the 2000's (that means you were likely born in the early 80s and later) were using language like this on the regular. Coach and players alike. I mean, Kobe was fined heavily because his lips were read.

 

[letsgrowcactus]

Ya this is not looking good for Q. I'll be shocked if he doesn't face some sort of repercussions for this. I mean, deny deny deny but if they find evidence he could be in trouble.

Pretty disappointed by all of this to be honest. I know hockey culture is gross (especially in the locker rooms, witnessed it first hand) but this is far beyond even petty name calling.

Even if it means losing Coach Q I hope heads role. This kind of shit is absolutely deplorable.

At this stage, this is all just accusations and scraps of information from the media. We need a proper full investigation here.

With that said, this all looks extremely ugly and the information we do have sounds believable. I'd really hate to lose Q when the team finally seems to be heading in the right direction but if he knew about all this and did nothing, then he needs to go. You just can't tolerate this shit.
I hope he didn't know (though then what does that tell about his relationship with his team and players?). I want to believe that his players' safety was more important to him than just winning, but these reports suggest the opposite.
Sidenote but was Tallon in any way connected to this? It seems he left before the assault happened (timeline a bit unclear here), but Aldrich was hired on his watch. At least Zito was nowhere near this mess - small blessings?

 

[violaswallet]

A couple of thoughts:
1) Was Q aware of the abuse at the time it happened? After he was fired?
+ If he escalated properly, there's not a problem. It was good the guy was fired, although authorities should have been notified: it's not obvious who should make the decision
+ My concern would be if Q helped recommend the guy or helped make the decision to not go to the police.
+ I am okay with them investigating before firing during the playoffs
2) What was the banter in practice?
+ Clearly what happened was wrong.

 

[drktmplr12]

the video coach presumably works at the pleasure of the head coach. the question will eventually be "how much did Q know and when did he know it" with the first question being highly subjective. if the answer is nothing-i doubt he will see any consequences but the optics are bad no matter what. if there is, however, a credible testimony that implicates any knowledge of illegal behavior-we are likely going to see a turnover of coaching.

this likely turns into something like penn state v.2.0 but probably much smaller since college football is so popular compared with professional hockey.

 

[KW]

I’m waiting to find out more. I know from my years of online experience that if I commit myself emotionally to one side or the other based on accusations and opinions, I’m more likely to regret it. I’ve decided that the discomfort of not knowing but thinking what could be is more tolerable than the discomfort of finding out later that I defended an ahole or a con artist.

 

[violaswallet]

the video coach presumably works at the pleasure of the head coach. the question will eventually be "how much did Q know and when did he know it" with the first question being highly subjective. if the answer is nothing-i doubt he will see any consequences but the optics are bad no matter what. if there is, however, a credible testimony that implicates any knowledge of illegal behavior-we are likely going to see a turnover of coaching.

this likely turns into something like penn state v.2.0 but probably much smaller since college football is so popular compared with professional hockey.

Didn't Sandusky stay on the staff? I don't see the same extent.

 

[drktmplr12]

Didn't Sandusky stay on the staff? I don't see the same extent.

True and Penn state involved 8 victims, whereas this is one in this case-potentially others. If the allegations are true this guy is a predator and I doubt an isolated incident.