Members Login
Post Info TOPIC: Role-Models vs Employees


Newbie

Status: Offline
Posts: 3
Date:
Role-Models vs Employees
Permalink   
 


Getting used to the new Forum, thought I'd put this here and see what kind of conversation it drums up. I'm interested to hear what you all have to say:

In light of the recent Patrick Kane rape accusations and ongoing developments, I found it interesting that the NYPost has essentially run two, contradicting stances on this situation from two different writers:

Larry Brooks: http://nypost.com/2015/09/19/its-not-nhls-place-to-pass-quick-judgment-on-patrick-kane/

Brett Crygalis: http://nypost.com/2015/09/25/patrick-kane-rape-case-exposes-callous-breed-of-sports-fan/

From my takeaway, Brooks is basically saying "stop expecting the NHL to play judge and jury", while Crygalis is saying "how dare we as sports fans cheer for someone who might be a rapist." I guess you could find a way to agree with both, but to me, it brings us a very interesting conundrum that we've seen play out in sports over the past few years.

Last year last year I read an article about how the prosecutor in the Ray Rice case had let Rice walk, but meanwhile was pursuing charges against a single mother who drove with a gun in her car from Pennsylvania (where she had a permit) into New Jersey (where she didn't) as was arrested for illegal possession of a weapon. My feeling was that is was ridiculous as a society that we get outraged that Ray Rice was or wan't allowed to play football, but no one seemed to care whether he was actually processed for Domestic Violence, and that we as sports fans need to stop expecting these leagues to be the ones handing out punishments for off-the-court offenses.

I understand we expect athletes to be role-models, that kids idolize these guys and wear their jerseys. Lots of athletes say they just want to come to work and do their job, but then then take endorsement deals from companies that hope that we spend our money because of that same idolization. And i understand that our court system takes far too long to dole out punishments than our twitter-centric, 24 hours news cycle society can handle. We want decisions now, we want punishments now. Innocent until proven guilty puts us in a corner of rooting for someone we may soon find out is a horrible person, but guilty until proven innocent can prevent someone who did nothing wrong from earning a living (and helping our fantasy teams). For the most part, I lean toward the innocent-until-proven-guilty stance, if I were accused of something I didn't do, I wouldn't want to lose my job and have my reputation ruined before I even got my day in court. But I'm not a professional athlete making millions of dollars based on my image. And where do you draw the line? Do you get suspended once you're found guilty in court? Or once charges are pressed? Or you're named a suspect?

I'm curious to hear what you folks think.



__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 10
Date:
Permalink   
 

I don't want to get too involved because this issue tends to drum up a ton of arguing and drama (as it should). That being said having seen how Roger Goodell handled a similar issue within the NFL, you would think the NHL would be a lot smarter and would have suspended Kane until the case has been closed. Obviously the Blackhawks are not going to suspend their star player... so yes it is up to the league to step in and handle the situation.



-- Edited by Better Call CK on Saturday 26th of September 2015 05:37:18 PM

__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.