ColbyCosh.com

Funny comment on one of the sports shows by a female announcer, basically saying it was funny that it's ok to smash an opponent's face into the boards but god forbid you say anything bad about his girlfriend...

Following the coverage, I began to get creeped out by the sense that the league felt like it needed to suspend Avery in order to protect player access to model-actress pussy. Indeed, you'll notice Rob Huck all but makes this argument explicitly in the comment thread.

I didn't know it was aimed at Phaneuf until it was explained to me (I don't read the gossip pages); that made me happy.

Amazing that they can and do suspend Avery for this in 2008 when they felt they couldn't suspend Jim Bouton for Ball Four in 1970.

MLB wouldn't suspend Avery today, either. Ballplayers have their rights and privileges defended pretty strongly in exchange for their dues; hockey players scarcely get anything at all.

...the league’s instant invention of a retroactive campus-style speech code to deal with Avery’s outburst.

Also known as Page 1 of the Standard Player's Contract, but I suppose it's all in how you look at it, innit...

Look, I'm as appalled as you at the satisfaction some of the pros seem to be taking in Avery's problems, and a long suspension would be a miscarriage of justice. But I don't see the problem -- logical, moral, contractual, or otherwise -- with the NHL boxing a player in the ears for something like this. One of the (or "the only") alternatives is to allow it to escalate further, even if only verbally. Yes, this would be amusing for Colby Cosh and many others, but I can't imagine it's something that you think the league should be aspiring to.

Oh, and the fact that this is the first time a player has been disciplined for something he said should be good evidence that the NHL isn't looking for reasons to do it -- shouldn't it? Perhaps one has to shock, insult, incite, and smirk all at the same time to draw the wrath.

Oh, and the fact that this is the first time a player has been disciplined for something he said should be good evidence that the NHL isn't looking for reasons to do it--shouldn't it?

Basically, I think that for the NHL to "aspire" to be anything but the venue for the best hockey played in the world is dangerous, under O'Sullivan's First Law if for no other reason. Is policing humour in a literal locker room really the sort of thing you would normally approve of as leading to a better world? You can't see anything discouraging or contemptible about this as a social development?

Policing, better world, social development... yeesh. Are we still talking about the NHL? Private organization, who on the evidence (so far) is merely trying to enforce a (very very low) minimum standard of decorum, as per its collective bargaining agreement?

Hockey is an extremely fast and violent game as it is; if you don't nip certain bullshit in the bud, the game can turn into a circus in a big hurry. Braden's First Law, I believe.

Art Vandelay with a nice bit here, talking a bit more about that hypocrisy. He also takes an angle I hadn't quite thought of; while it seems clear enough that the Stars might be suffering from buyer's remorse on account of the Stars' record and their (cough) chemistry, they probably are on account of the economy as well.

The NHLPA had best go the mattresses if the league or the Stars try to claim Avery's contract is now voidable.

Art Vandelay with a nice bit *here*, talking a bit more about that hypocrisy. He also takes an angle I hadn't quite thought of; while it seems clear enough that the Stars might be suffering from buyer's remorse on account of the Stars' record and their (cough) chemistry, they probably are on account of the economy as well.

The NHLPA had best go the mattresses if the league or the Stars try to claim Avery's contract is now voidable.

So, Conquest's Law means that the secret evil cabal leading the NHL is made up of....

I think a small fine in the $1000 range would have been the way to go if they were really worried about league image.

Whenever Avery says something, it's good for the game. Great, actually. I have no idea what the NHL thinks it's doing by diffusing great rivalry opportunities. It seems to be a new phenomenon(since the Bertuzzi incident?), and the same could be said of NHL interference in the Lowe-Burke fight earlier in the year. Maybe they wouldn't have suspended him if Bill Daley could have flown out in time, so he could spend the game frowning down at both teams.

As for Calgary, it's pretty telling when the home team can't be bothered to put up any type of effort for its fans in a grudge match.

Congrats Alex -- you got me to audibly scoff three times reading that one last sentence.

Yeah, but the second last sentence is pretty funny.

What can I say Matt, it was pretty much written for you. My Habs are 2-1 in cup finals while I've been alive...that loss etc. :)

Gosh, Matt, you think that when someone goes after employee speech there might be cheap economic motives mixed in? I'm shocked, SHOCKED.

“Playing in the National Hockey League is a privilege, requiring a high standard of personal behavior." That'd be a great epitaph for Bettman if you followed up with "This doesn't apply to our owners, of course."

And, needless to say, there should be instinctual suspicion of anything that ends with someone being bullied into taking "anger management", particularly when he displayed no evidence of anger while committing his supposed offence. If nothing else, can we oppose forced psychological therapy by "private organizations" for its own sake? Nooo, there are no wider relevant social implications here at all.

Seems to be part of a wider push by corporate entities to protect the "brand", irrespective of larger questions of freedom of speech, or other rights.

Colby is correct, as well, I imagine, to ask where it stops. If Avery can be censured/suspended for a crude remark, what happens to larger political affiliations.

As for anger management, my own experience at the post-secondary level, is that incorrect speech, or violators of code of conduct protocols, is punished by forced attendance at "diversity training."

But I still count myself in the minority regarding the overall hypocrisy of everyone involved. Violence of differing degrees is encouraged, promoted, repackaged and sold. Yes, some lines are drawn, but even then the NHL knows that violence sells. The advent of the internet has taken "rock 'em sock 'em' to new levels of profitability.

Keeping with the biased Oilers fan bit, let's not forget Avery's words for Georges Laraque a couple years back. I don't think many of us believed Avery's denial at the time, but I don't see how anyone could believe it now.

I'm on the fence as it relates to the suspension, but I don't buy the argument that guys like him are good for the game. Ten years later, can any of us look back and say that John Rocker was good for MLB? Blips. That's all they are.

And, needless to say, there should be instinctual suspicion of anything that ends with someone being bullied into taking "anger management", particularly when he displayed no evidence of anger while committing his supposed offence. If nothing else, can we oppose forced psychological therapy by "private organizations" for its own sake?

Agreed, and Yes.

Keeping with the biased Oilers fan bit, let's not forget Avery's words for Georges Laraque a couple years back. I don't think many of us believed Avery's denial at the time, but I don't see how anyone could believe it now.

I don't know what I believe about that. A tendency to make appalling statements does not mean that he's a liar.

"Following the coverage, I began to get creeped out by the sense that the league felt like it needed to suspend Avery in order to protect player access to model-actress pussy. Indeed, you'll notice Rob Huck all but makes this argument explicitly in the comment thread."

I hadn't thought of it that way until I saw the comment you're referring to in the NP, but now I'm ~75% convinced that's the main driver of the player outrage. For the owner's, it makes sense from an economic perspective too - we'll pay you less, but you'll have Marisa Miller on speed-dial. Now some loudmouth comes along and threatens to mess up a good thing.

A tendency to make appalling statements does not mean that he's a liar.

So you are not denying that he made the statement to Laraque (you called it a tendency, after all) but that he lied about it?

Not access to actresses privates per se, but probably the powerful marketing convergences of branding between Hollywood/celebrities and professional athletes.

On the other hand, anyone who didn't know the Phaneuf was dating a hollywood starlet does now.

What does it say that a thread about Sean Avery draws far more replies on Mr. Cosh's website than any thread about the recent political turmoil in this country?

Whatever it says, I am absolutely one hundred percent sure that it's a compliment.

So you are not denying that he made the statement to Laraque (you called it a tendency, after all) but that he lied about it?

I thought that Avery denied Laraque's allegations. If he denied them, I don't think that the events of the past few days makes Laraques allegations any more or less likely to be truthful.

Since I first heard it mention on CHED - Alberta's Information Superstation - a few days ago, it seems to have stayed in the top rank of hockey news.

I don't normally follow hockey news (I get enough from CHED to participate un dockside discussions) but even without CHED I wouldn't have missed this.

All over Canada and the USA, people with no interest whatsoever in hockey have heard of Avery's unsavory comment.

Suspension? The boy should get a bonus for putting NHL momentarily on the public radar.

I would agree with your arguement if Avery had attacked Phaneuf alone, but to drag someone in his personal life into the game is crossing the line.

Technically, he didn't attack her, did he? I mean the attack was directed at Phaneuf and perhaps the real implication is that Phaneuf and others who like his "sloppy seconds" are actually interested in him, and show that interest by pursuing his ex-girlfriends. So, the real insult is that he's alluding to a homo-erotic attraction on the part of pro players who pursue his "seconds". Discuss.