Hickey Doesn't Get It

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 14, 2011 5:07 PM EST in Opinions and other Habs links

A lot of my personal and limited success as an amateur hockey writer comes from the Montreal Gazette's Montreal Canadiens hockey blog; Hockey Inside/Out. When I began writing several of my opinions and articles were featured there and I owe them a great debt of gratitude for that. I consider Mike Boone to be a personal friend. Pat Hickey played a large part in that website's creation and success since it began around the time I started university. Mike Boone has featured two stories on me in the Gazette and featured my comments another two times. I felt before writing this piece that it was important to write this preface so all readers understand that I don't criticize the Gazette lightly, nor do I take any pleasure in doing so. I understand that I may be burning some bridges here, that should tell you how important this is.

However I'm compelled to weigh in here, not just because I'm extremely uncomfortable with what Hickey has said over the last 48 hours, but because of the reactions/non-reactions of others and the urging of a good friend, who urged me to express publicly what we'd spoken about privately.

The point is simple here, Pat Hickey doesn't get, and he doesn't have any interest in understanding it. Perhaps he thinks he was attacking the culture of hero worship in modern society, as he alluded to on TSN 990, but he miserably failed in context, truth and target. I'd like to go through both of Hickey's articles on the subject, as well as use some of his interview on TSN 990 to show not only how wrong he is, but how blatantly dishonest.

For the interests of context, I'm not going to cut out any of Hickey's articles. I'll be quoting them in large chunks. I do this because I don't think it would be fair to pick and choose what Hickey said out of context. I'll address everything, starting with his article from December 13th.

"It was the right message from the wrong messenger.

Shortly after Graham James pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting former National Hockey League player Theoren Fleury and an unnamed victim, Fleury held a news conference and accused Canada’s politicians of doing nothing to protect our children.

He was criticial [sic] of the ruling that allows James to remain free on bail in Montreal until he is sentenced by a Winnipeg court in February.

"It’s just unbelievable for me when I think about what happened and that he was granted a pardon," said Fleury, referring to a pardon following a similar conviction in 1997. "Then he was allowed to leave the country, go to Mexicio [sic] and who know what he was doing in Mexico. Then he comes back, they give him bail so he can continue his behaviour in Montreal."

I agree James should be doing hard time. In fact, I don’t understand why he was granted bail earlier this year after Fleury ended years of silence by detailing the abuse in his best-selling, as-told-to autobiography."

If Hickey had kept his focus here and continued on the premise that perhaps Sheldon Kennedy is a better spokesman than Theo Fleury for this cause, I don't think many people would be upset. Although it is distasteful to pit two abuse victims against each other, that would be Hickey's opinion. But that's not how it went. The tone is clear before anything is actually said, this piece is character assassination. Using the adjectives "best-selling" and "as-told-to" to describe Fleury's book, he's already subtly insinuating two things: 1) Fleury is in it for the money and 2) he's not a real writer, therefore... something. Perhaps the insinuation is that Fleury is less than Hickey because he isn't a writer? I'm not sure. However pointing out that Fleury didn't write his book alone is a red herring designed to take credit away from him.

However the opening to this piece doesn't fit with Pat Hickey's appearances on radio. He told TSN 990 that it bothered him when Fleury went after the justice system and politicians over lenience on James, but if it was the right message, why did it bother him in and of itself?

"But I find it hypocritical that Fleury can blast the justice system for giving James two months of freedom when he provided his former coach with years.

James’s perversions first came to light when former NHL player Sheldon Kennedy stepped forward in 1996. Kennedy is the hero of this piece and, on the day James pleaded guilty, he was testifying before a U.S. Congressional hearing into sexual abuse of children, a hot topic in the U.S. in the wake of scandals involving alleged criminal acts by coaches at Penn State and Syracuse University."

And instantly anyone with any ounce of experience in the matter, or understanding of abuse has their back up. Hickey has backed himself into a corner over this statement since, repeatedly saying on TSN Radio 990 that Fleury was a man when Sheldon Kennedy came forward and should have done the same. This is a remarkable display of ignorance in human psychology, and a clear remnant of 50's machismo that Christie Blatchford would love. Hickey might as well have said "Man up". The idea that you can snap your fingers and recover from years of sexual abuse is astoundingly ignorant. That Hickey claims to have "read literature about abuse" makes this even worse.

Bringing up Penn State here serves a clear purpose which you'll see later. It's a subtle subliminal message.

Fleury didn’t show the same courage as Kennedy, which is understandable because he had more to lose. Kennedy was a role player whose career was being derailed by substance abuse. Fleury was a star and, if he was having problems with drugs or alcohol at that time, they hadn’t affected his performance on the ice. If Fleury had come forward, there may have been more outrage and James may have received a harsher sentence. If Fleury has [sic] come forward, it might have made life easier for Kennedy.

The same courage? Because everyone is the same? You're actually indicting a victim of abuse for not coming forward sooner, and then lambasting him for not being a good enough role model when he finally does come out? Do you not see the illogical circle of hate here? You're holding up Sheldon Kennedy as if there's an established standard for when someone should speak about abuse, then moving backwards with hindsight to accuse Fleury of not coming forward for fear of losing his spot as a hockey player.

By your logic, Kennedy could be deemed a poor role model for not coming forward before his own NHL career. Whether each player was a star or a grinder is so utterly irrelevant. Your purpose in bringing it up is clearly to establish Fleury as someone who's been given everything while Kennedy had to work for his career. Canadiens fans shouldn't be surprised that you would use this fallacious mode of building a story, you did it with Price and Halak multiple times after all, regardless of the truth.

"Nobody should question Fleury’s decision to remain silent."

You just did, Pat. Not only did you question it, you called him a coward for not coming forward. You used his friend's similar situation as a standard to judge him. You speculated that James would have been punished more severely if Fleury had stepped forward, in effect blaming him for James being free all these years. You did the same thing two paragraphs earlier when you simplistically stated that Fleury had provided James with years of freedom.

"What should be questioned is Fleury’s continuing role in James’s life. At the time of Kennedy’s revelations, James was the coach of the Calgary Hitmen. He was one of the co-owners of the junior team in the Western Hockey League. One of the other owners was Theoren Fleury. Here was someone who had suffered abuse at the hands of Graham James. Here was someone who knew that James had abused other players. Here was someone who was exposing other children to the same sexual predator.

Fleury has been through enough counselling [sic] to know that there's a word for someone who acts in this fashion - enabler

Here's where we see why Hickey mentioned Penn State. Because of the outrage surrounding that controversy, the reader will automatically make an association between Fleury's involvement in the Hitmen and Joe Paterno's involvement with Jerry Sandusky. This is the kind of oversimplification Hickey is constantly guilty of here.

I think there is an interesting distinction between obfuscation and lying. This paragraph comes dangerously close to that distinction. As Hickey pointed out, he's a veteran journalist of over 40 years, so because of this I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and hope he researched this paragraph, but in a way it is almost better that he didn't. The implication here is that Fleury was one of small number of decision makers for the Hitmen and hired James himself. What is conveniently omitted in Hickey's piece is that Fleury and James weren't co-owners of the Hitmen, they were two of eighteen investors in the team. Others included Brett Hart and Joe Sakic.

Not only that, but Hickey accused Fleury of dodging questions pertaining to his responsibility during James' employ of the Hitmen. But that's not true. It is a legitimate question to ask why Fleury didn't object to James being hired and why why he was in business with him, and Fleury has been open and honest about it. Greg Wyshynski of Puck Daddy dug up this article from the Toronto Star where Fleury addressed this exact issue:

"It's kind of like the Stockholm Syndrome," Fleury said. "It's weird how after all that happened, you can still feel some sense of loyalty towards somebody, but that's the hold that he had on me. It's not that way today. ... But I hope by explaining and coming forward, we can help a whole bunch of people who are afraid to come out with their own stuff, because it can be done."

Does Hickey believe that Fleury has some mental block over the fact that Graham James was a part of his life? I guarantee that he deals with it every day.

"We should all hope that there is a greater awareness of sexual abuse, particularly when it involves children, and that the perpetrators of these acts are dealt with harshly. But if we have to find a poster boy for abuse, we can do better than Theoren Fleury.

A current TSN promo for the upcoming world junior championships spotlights Fleury. A better choice would have been his teammate on the 1988 gold-medal team - Sheldon Kennedy."

Here's the problem with that Pat; Fleury isn't a "poster boy". He is using his relative fame to help others and hopefully exact larger punishment for sexual predators in this country. Sheldon Kennedy is doing the same, but Sheldon Kennedy isn't a household name in this country. To tarnish one to raise another has no place in the discussion. It serves no purpose.

Hickey attempted to defend himself with another column today, but in effect just dug a deeper hole.

"When I weighed in on the latest developments in the Graham James sexual-abuse case in Tuesday’s paper in a column under the headline "Fleury is no poster boy for fighting abuse", I expected a reaction.

As a columnist, I have opinions – and I don’t expect everyone to agree with me. This was one of those times.

As of Tuesday afternoon, I had received more than 200 emails and countless Twitter messages, and the majority were critical of my views. I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with what seems to be some misconceptions about what I wrote.

Several dozen people have accused me of being sympathetic to James, but nothing could be further from the truth. I wrote that James shouldn’t have been released on bail last year and – I know I’ll get some of my liberal friends upset at this – I believe they should lock him up and throw away the key."

Congratulations Mr. Hickey, you believe a serial child rapist belongs in prison. This entire first section of your column is building a straw man argument. Essentially what you're doing is ignoring legitimate criticism and lumping it all into a misconception that I'm guessing relatively few people even mentioned. It was clear from the beginning that you weren't defending Graham James, that was never the problem. The problem is that you were shifting criticism from James onto a victim of his. Your stated goal in doing so was to promote another victim as a better role model. Instead of accomplishing that stated goal, you wrote a hit piece on a victim for sexual abuse and effectively called him a coward for not doing what he's done now 15 years ago.

I have been accused of being insensitive toward victims of abuse. I grew up in New York and attended all-male Catholic schools during the greatest abuse scandal in the history of the church. I know people who were abused, and I’m aware of the physical and emotional pain they endured. I had advances made on me.

I had a football coach who wanted to check to make sure our protective cups fit properly. I wasn’t abused, but that doesn’t make me better or stronger than someone else ... just luckier.

Because, you know, having a coach touch your jock strap and knowing people who were abused is the exact same as multiple years of being raped, right? Here's the problem Pat, you keep saying you understand, you don't. I don't either. Unless you're a trained therapist who deals with abuse victims or an abuse victim yourself, you can't understand. This is similar to depression, which is getting more awareness now, but even 5 years ago people were told to pick themselves up by their boot straps and just stop being sad. You don't know, you can never know, but you can be sympathetic, and you're not.

That's a pretty damning thing for me to say, I know, but listening to how you reacted to a caller named Daniel on TSN Radio 990 (link to the audio at AllHabs) spoke volumes as he attempted to explain to you how hard it is to speak out. Your audible sighs and clear frustration throughout belied a lack or respect and understanding.

"I’ve been accused of blaming the victim, in this case Theoren Fleury. I wrote that I had no problem with Fleury’s decision to hide the abuse he suffered from James. This is not uncommon for victims of sexual abuse, and I suspect the overwhelming majority of James’s victims remain anonymous. But Fleury drew attention to himself when he called a press conference to criticize what is a flawed legal system."

Yes, you did write that, right after you accused Fleury of being a coward for not stepping up sooner, and insinuating that he didn't because he was greedy to keep his career as a star NHL player.

Your logic is so inherently confusing over these columns. On the one hand you continually insult Fleury for not stepping forward, then whenever he does you say he opens himself to criticism or isn't a good enough role model. It seems like he can't win and your mind was made up on him long ago.

"The most troublesome word for most readers was my characterization of Fleury as an enabler in his role as a part owner of the Calgary Hitmen, a junior team co-owned by James and coached by James. Many people have mentioned the complex relationship between abuser and victim, but someone has to feel empathy for the players and parents of the Hitmen who felt they were doing the right thing by putting themselves in the hands of James.

After all, here was a coach who had guided two players to the NHL – Fleury and Sheldon Kennedy, another one of James’s victims – and he had the imprimatur of an NHL superstar. What could go wrong?"

Considering you displayed this information in a dishonest way, there should be no surprise that readers were troubled by that characterization. The implication that not blaming Fleury for Graham James coaching the Hitmen is somehow not showing empathy for the people who suffered at his hands during that time is also dishonest. It is a clear false dichotomy in a search for someone other than Graham James to put blame onto.

"On his website Monday night, Fleury called for me to be fired.

On Tuesday, Michael Landsberg asked me if I was willing to appear with Fleury on TSN’s Off The Record.

I agreed. Fleury declined."

The way Hickey ends his "clarification" column might be the most damning part of this entire situation. Should anyone be surprised that Fleury doesn't want to be bullied on national television? Personally I think Landsberg would stop that from happening, but this last line is clear bullying, make no mistake. Hickey is attempting to turn his ignorant column into a conduit where he can attack Fleury with a larger audience. Why on earth would Fleury take part in that?

Hickey mentioned in his radio interview that he's not convinced that Fleury has had a positive effect on people who've been abused. That flies in the face of what thousands of people have said publicly. Largely because of the efforts of Theoren Fleury there's far more public awareness of sexual abuse in sports, as well as higher criticism of weak laws against the abusers.

Even if you don't personally like Theoren Fleury, or find his past actions to be distasteful, what he is doing now has meaning. This is a man who lived his entire adult life in pain and as an addict and victim. He still battles those demons every single day, and uses them as a motivation to help others. Fleury is far from perfect, and if you'd read his book he would be the first person to tell you so, but that doesn't diminish what he is doing now.

Reactions like Pat Hickey's are actually very common. How often today do people cry out for someone with clout to speak on an issue, only to tar and feather anyone who comes forward? Remember when Mario Lemieux, someone with actual power in the NHL, started speaking out on hits to the head? Instantly people called him a hypocrite for employing Matt Cooke. Everyone is looking for someone to do all the work, but no one is ever good enough.

Reactions like Pat Hickey's do nothing good for this situation, if anything they shame people who've been abused into staying silent.

I understand that Stu Cowan and the Gazette have a responsibility to defend their columnists, especially long tenured ones like Pat Hickey. And Hickey has been told he'll be facing no punishment for his column, but they also have a journalistic responsibility to tell the truth, and Pat Hickey cam dangerously close to lying in his column by omitting relevant facts.

Tweet Comment 141 comments | 11 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I'm the 'Daniel'

Hi Andrew. I’m the ‘Daniel’ in your article.

You can read a lot more details on my take on the whole situation here:

http://tricolore.ca/chfans/showthread.php?60306

Daniel

by Daniel Bigras on Dec 14, 2011 5:33 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

Thank you for commenting Daniel. The way Hickey scoffed at you really, really bothered me.

You’re damn right you’re a survivor and you should be proud. Reading your story now.

All the best in the future.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 14, 2011 5:37 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Thanks Andrew. I kept my cool. I was cut off too quickly, I had not done with him. I had a few more questions to ask him.

What people need to understand that the Hitmen franchise was given to James in 1994. 18 investors came on board (inc. Fleury and Kennedy) in 1995. James was arrested in 1996 because Kennedy spoke out.

They were investors, they couldn’t come on board and ask for James to leave. James was the owner of the franchise. And they only way they could have kick out James was to own more than 50% of the franchise and have a reason to kick him out. He was a great coach. It was impossible to find a reason to kick him out. Unless Fleury or Kennedy reported him to the cops. Kennedy did, Fleury was not ready. There’s no enabling here. Enabling means allowing something to happen. Fleury could not prevent it eventho he wanted.

I wanted to make sure that Hickey was not calling Fleury an enabler for not reporting James years ago. Cuz if so, Hickey was calling me an enabler for not reporting my father. And calling MILLIONS like me for not reporting our predator.

And I believe that’s what he thinks. And it shocks me.

Hickey said on TSN 1050: ‘Victims should take responsibility for their actions.’ Or inactions? Then he attacked me and millions like me.

He doesn’t understand why we do not talk. I want him to. He doesn’t understand the impact of sexual abuse (mental illness), which prevents us from living a normal life. I want him to.

We do not talk because of pressure from our peers, from our family members. Because we think the predator and people around him/her suffer enough, because we don’t want to hurt other people and ruin THEIR lives. We do not talk because we don’t want to be judged or called liars and have to fight to convince of what happened to us.

We do not talk because we DON’T WANT TO LOSE OUR FAMILY.

I spoke and I lost my family.

Or my family lost me. That’s more like it.

In the case of Fleury, it was not from a family member, so it wasn’t pressure from a mother or an aunt that prevented Theo to talk.

Also, we often end up with a mental illness. Î did but I didn’t know I had it for 23 years. Living with a mental illness without knowing you have one is like driving a car with a bad engine, always fixing it, always having problems with it, but never fixing THE ONE THING that causes all the problems: bad gasoline.

And with the illness that I had (Borderline Personality Disorder), life was hell. The first thing was to survive, not kill myself. I never thought if he was in contact with other kids. But according to Hickey, I was an enabler. Duh.

As if sexual predators stay in jail forever. EVEN when we report them to the cops, after they are done with their ridiculous sentence, as if they are fixed and don’t do it again. How the hell does that make a survivor an enabler?

Sexual predators, like many sexual deviations, are MENTAL ILLNESSES. They cannot control themselves, sexual urges make them do things their brain cannot prevent them from doing. Their brain do not function properly and they think about things that they shouldn’t and it gives them sexual urges. A few years of community work or jail does not fix a mental illness.

So Hickey’s argument that a survivor can be enabler is completely wrong.

Hickey was wrong about Fleury’s enabling power with the Hitmen, he had none. He’s also wrong about survivors’ enabling power.

When he wrote ‘best-selling self-auto-biography’ it was PAINTED with contempt and jealousy. It’s obvious that his main point is that he’s jealous about Fleury. Either he doesn’t agree that Fleury is a spokesman about sexual abuses, either he’s upset that Sheldon Kennedy doesn’t get as much media coverage. Or he doesn’t agree that Fleury is selling books about his story. I don’t see any other possibilities.

by Daniel Bigras on Dec 14, 2011 8:51 PM EST up reply actions 15 recs

More people need to know the real details involving the Hitmen saga. What Hickey purported to be true clearly wasn’t.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 14, 2011 9:22 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I just did a simple RESEARCH. :-) I don’t understand why Hickey didn’t.

I thought at first that Hickey was calling Fleury a liar for being in business with James for years. When it was barely one year. So that’s when I realized he was attacking Fleury’s silence for years.

sigh

by Daniel Bigras on Dec 14, 2011 9:44 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

The way I see it Hickey is one of two things:

1) A lazy journalist who didn’t bother researching or

2) A journalist who did the research, and ignored the facts to push an agenda.

Neither are good, but the second one is worse.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 14, 2011 9:58 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I think it is 3)

A lazy journalist who doesn’t care about the facts and wanted to push his agenda.

by Chris Boyle on Dec 14, 2011 10:32 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

That would be as bad as it gets, and wouldn’t surprise me.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 14, 2011 10:37 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Like I pointed out with the Parise/Price analysis, he probably thinks he researched it. That research was Price telling him.

He is old school. You could get away with that when joe blogger didn’t have game logs, video and dressing room access. We all heard Price say “he knew it was coming” before he posted his article. The whole article would have existed as the quote and us believing it two decades ago.

He still lives in that world and when confronted tosses two middle fingers at accusations.

by Chris Boyle on Dec 14, 2011 10:42 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Never mentioned it in your post Chris, but remember Price calling Kovalev’s shot at the ASG Skills Competition?

Kevin van Steendelaar

http://www.twitter.com/kvansteendelaar

but don't forget...

http://www.twitter.com/HabsEOTP

by Kevin van Steendelaar on Dec 14, 2011 10:49 PM EST up reply actions

Even telling people off wouldn’t have been as bad as his radio interview. So callous.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 14, 2011 10:49 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

That’s exactly it: A columnist that wanted to push his own agenda cuz he thinks his logic is sound.

Heck! Why would anyone want to invest money with his predator?

I fucking invited my father to my first wedding! (yep, first.. thanks BPD).

A child sexual predator is a MANIPULATOR, not always a violent rapist. They make you feel bad for THEM.

Not everyone knows that.. Hickey didn’t and I understand that. So, that’s why he thinks that his logic is sound.

I DON’T CARE that he made that mistake. What is BAD is that he doesn’t want to realize that he made it and doesn’t want to learn and apologize. THAT’S the problem for me.

by Daniel Bigras on Dec 14, 2011 11:38 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs

Hickey. A hack. I call him Pat Hackey.

This man has been a disgrace to the Gazette for years and years and years. He is intellectually weak and has little journalistic integrity. He mails in his columns, and game recaps far far far too often. A truly lazy old school dinosaur of a ‘journalist/columnist/reporter’.

Please recall sometime last year he wrote a piece about Don Cherry. He took his dog to a vet, and there was a plaque at the vet’s office commemorating Don Cherry for being a benefactor. Hickey wrote a very flattering piece about The Don on that WITHOUT checking that in fact it was another Don Cherry. Egg on his face and retraction and apologies printed the next day. Any other paper in Canada would have fired him for that egregious journalistic offence.

I wrote him once and asked him why he loved to use the catchphrase, “Excited States” in his columns. He politely replied that people in the States generally get more excited than Canadians over everything and he KNEW that to be true because he is American or was American and had traveled extensively thru the States. Utterly laughable. A joke.

Great piece Andrew taking him to task. He richly deserves it. There are only two writers on the Gazette sports staff with any talent imo. Mike Boone and Dave Stubbs. Todd is a lazy vindictive nasty hack who wastes valuable column space with his idiotic Heroes and Zeros space amongst so many many other transgressions. Zurkowsky is another lazy hack. Cowan has been blogging pretty well and have some respect for him as a blogger, but NO respect for him as their sports editor. Stephanie Myles has been dead since the Expos prematurely perished. The LLSJ a.k.a. Red Fisher is an old curmudgeon and is tolerable because he is old, but not nearly enough nostalgic articles from him.

Anyway, back on message here. Hickey once again failed dismally with his radio interviews and with his columns re Theo Fleury. Glad he is getting severely roasted for it. He richly deserves it. Time to head off gently into that good night Pat.

Loathing the Habs with every fibre of my being since 1963.

by Pyramid Power on Dec 15, 2011 12:49 PM EST up reply actions

Please disregard my signature by the way.

I am not a fan of the Canadiens to say the least or more specifically their fan base nowadays. Grew up and went to many many games at the old Forum back when Canadiens fans were mostly classy.

They are not anymore or a majority of them are not. That is my opinion. Feel free to disagree.

Loathing the Habs with every fibre of my being since 1963.

by Pyramid Power on Dec 15, 2011 12:52 PM EST up reply actions

No worries, this isn’t about hockey. It’s about something far more important that touches on Hockey.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 15, 2011 12:57 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Precisely. A hockey matter not a matter of team allegiances.

Well done Andrew.

Loathing the Habs with every fibre of my being since 1963.

by Pyramid Power on Dec 15, 2011 12:59 PM EST up reply actions

Thanks again!

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 15, 2011 1:19 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

phickey@montrealgazette.com

Just wrote him and am waiting to see if he has the courage to come on here, and explain himself. Challenged him to do so and ‘man up’.

See if he does so.

Loathing the Habs with every fibre of my being since 1963.

by Pyramid Power on Dec 15, 2011 6:58 PM EST up reply actions

phickey@montrealgazette.com

There is his email address. He is getting roasted on the Gazette and I just sent this article to him and many more comments.

I would suggest everyone else do the same.

Loathing the Habs with every fibre of my being since 1963.

by Pyramid Power on Dec 15, 2011 6:45 PM EST up reply actions

Pat Hickey Labels Fleury an "Enabler" of Child Sexual Molestation

E-mailed Hickey yesterday, expressing my outrage (before discovering this blog) . Sent him a link to Ross Read’s eloquent blog (he’s a victim too) …………..http://thehockeywriters.com/montreal-columnist-slams-theo-fleury/

by brad008 on Dec 16, 2011 9:03 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Nice text, great email.

I also added my two cents, because of people supporting Hickey. Unreal, even from one person who was also sexually abused. Many people don’t get it.

by Daniel Bigras on Dec 16, 2011 1:15 PM EST up reply actions

I saw Andrew post about this message on Twitter, and I registered just to rec it. I have tremendous admiration for people who are able to speak openly about difficult situations like you have, and I’m glad you posted this so that I could see it. It’s unfortunate that a number of people have tried to calmly reason with Hickey like you have, and he just doesn’t seem interested in re-thinking what he said. Thankfully, I hope the outrage over what he said is a sign that there aren’t too many people who think the same way Hickey does.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Internet Champ. I'm on Twitter too! - draglikepull

by Draglikepull on Dec 14, 2011 11:29 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs

What’s most encouraging to me is that the outrage isn’t tapering off. It seems to be building in pressure.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 14, 2011 11:34 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Unless the French media in Quebec jump on the bandwagon, it will die down very quickly I think. Right now, French reporters do not want to touch the story cuz they are friends with Hickey.

François Gagnon publicly wrote on Twitter that he doesn’t want to touch the story because it concerns his friend and the subject is too sensitive.

Brian Wilde confirmed on Twitter than Main Stream Medias are not touching the story much and only us, little bloggers, are keeping the story alive. But for how long?

by Daniel Bigras on Dec 14, 2011 11:47 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

We need to keep hammering away on it then. No choice in that. A good step would probably be contacting media outside the sports fraternity.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 14, 2011 11:51 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Working on that. I have a strategy to get the attention of the Main Stream Media. ;-) Nothing illegal. ;-)

by Daniel Bigras on Dec 14, 2011 11:56 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Sounds good!

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 14, 2011 11:58 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Was led to this post by Puck Daddy. Also joined just to rec, and now comment.

Fantastic post. Hickey’s thoughts on this subject are disturbing, and his articles are a disgrace.

Andrew Alberts once had an awkward moment, just to see how it feels.

by raincity on Dec 15, 2011 11:20 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Thanks for contributing!

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 15, 2011 11:27 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Thank YOU for writing this post. I can’t help but worry that Hickey’s ignorance might have scared some people away from talking about the abuse they have suffered. Your words, and the commentary here, show that there are people out that there that understand and care. Maybe it will inspire a victim somewhere to come forward and seek help.

Andrew Alberts once had an awkward moment, just to see how it feels.

by raincity on Dec 15, 2011 11:38 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

That’s the big danger, people being shamed into silence. Hopefully people realize Hickey is in he vast minority.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 16, 2011 12:00 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Thanks for the comment.. I just hope Hickey can learn and use his influence and ‘popularity’ to do good, that’s all I care. Because the media are not doing enough to help victims and survivors talk.

The biggest thing with child sexual predators is that victims (a victim is someone being abused at the present) and survivors (a survivor is someone that WAS victim of abuse) are not motivated to talk, they don’t know if they should. If the Main Stream Medias would use their power and influence, more victims and survivors would talk and expose their predators.

We would live a few years of CRAZY news, finding THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of sexual predators. No room in prisons, etc.. Then predators would be scared and would want to tamper their urges and GET HELP. Cuz sexual predators are sick, and it can be helped.

by Daniel Bigras on Dec 14, 2011 11:44 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs

Nice to see you here Draglikepull

GO LEAFS GO! LOL

Loathing the Habs with every fibre of my being since 1963.

by Pyramid Power on Dec 15, 2011 12:53 PM EST up reply actions

Massive reply fail.

Yeesh!

Loathing the Habs with every fibre of my being since 1963.

by Pyramid Power on Dec 15, 2011 12:54 PM EST up reply actions

a thousand times, yes

I, too, have lost my family because I spoke up—or, rather, I shut them off when they said, well, yes, we all knew that. But he had a hard life, and he’s dead now, so it doesn’t matter, does it? We’re one big happy family, and we don’t have to acknowledge anything bad, right?

Let’s see, a terrified child, years of mental illness as an adult, but oh, wait, I have a pretty decent life now, so it doesn’t matter?

AS IF.

The bad news is that people like Hickey will not ever understand for the simple reason that he doesn’t want to. To understand why Fleury bought in on the Hitmen, why you did not speak up about your abuser, why I avoid an entire state in order to maintain my sanity and keep my own children safe, requires a degree of flexibility and compassion and honesty that he doesn’t want to have. He’d rather take potshots from his bully pulpit than stop and think about the ugliness of the reality we live with. He’d have to find some journalistic integrity to go to work with, and then he’d be unable to shape the facts to fit his stories—and he obviously does not believe he is a good enough writer to meet that kind of challenge.

I applaud your willingness to speak up, and your bravery in calling in to talk to the man astounds me. More power to you—and this, THIS is what Fleury is doing with his own stance on this issue. Because he stands up, because he pushes back so fiercely, he challenges the rest of us to stand up, too. I’ve spoken more about this in the last three weeks than I have in the last fifteen years. But even if Hickey doesn’t change, your bravery in calling in and confronting him helped the rest of those listening to see him for what he truly is: a jealous bully. Details won’t convince him; I wouldn’t be surprised if he knew that Kennedy was an investor but handwaved it because, in the end, Kennedy donated a very little bit of money—then asked for it back. But your insistence on meeting him head-to-head? That got people’s attention (look at this blog entry!), and that will do more good in the long run than getting any details across to a man who isn’t listening.

However, you are totally right that people need to know this about the franchise, and they don’t seem to be looking. You should write up the details you have posted here and send that email to every media outlet you can think of. Post it in the comments, call it in to talk shows, whatever you can do, do it. Because that will put pressure where change COULD happen, which is with the media’s audience and then the paper that employs him.

"I read a lot, but I'm quite illiterate."
~~J.D. Salinger

by klostes on Dec 15, 2011 12:47 AM EST up reply actions 7 recs

Hi Klostes,

Thanks for sharing your story as well. Impressive.

That’s why I’m trying to do, to get medias to cover the story, but it’s a hot potato. One French finally media decided to cover the story tonight, TVA Sports.

Here: http://tvasports.ca/video/1328391136001

It was a quick video, agreeing that Pat Hickey made a mistake and victims/survivors should not be blamed.

But I’m afraid it will die down quickly and we won’t speak about it in a few days…

by Daniel Bigras on Dec 15, 2011 1:10 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Then we keep it active in the blogosphere until the mainstream media can’t ignore it. Awesome about the video (sadly, my foreign language skills go more towards Latin and a smattering of Chinese), and at least they’re saying he’s wrong, if nothing else. I’ve seen two articles pop up in the last hour or two about it. Not strong defenses, but at least they’re saying flat out that Hickey is wrong for blaming Fleury. Interestingly, at least one of them talks about his own guilt for not speaking up about Kennedy and James when someone asked him about it at the time they were both in Swift Current. So if they are not blast backs, they are at least pointing out that Hickey’s definition of “enabler” is very, very broad and pointing that at Fleury is wrong on every level.

"I read a lot, but I'm quite illiterate."
~~J.D. Salinger

by klostes on Dec 15, 2011 2:07 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I haven’t shared as much of my story as you have, but I’m working up to it. You have inspired me to at least start posting in my own blog about this. If we all speak up together, we can make the changes necessary in our culture to see the end of people like Hickey getting a pass for writing this kind of crap.

I saw your comments on the Gazette pages; excellent!

"I read a lot, but I'm quite illiterate."
~~J.D. Salinger

by klostes on Dec 15, 2011 3:34 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

When I saw the Pro Hockey Talk post on Hickey’s first article this came to mind. I guess it’s a lot easier to do when you’re writing about something of little consequence like sports.

Over at Puck Daddy Greg Wyshynski pointed out that this isn’t the first time Hickey has gone after Fleury – he did so in 2009 as well. It seems like Hickey feels compelled to paint a false dichotomy between Sheldon Kennedy and Theo Fleury. Hickey is going back to the #1 tool in the Montreal hockey writer toolbox – Price vs. Halak and Koivu vs. Ribeiro come to mind. You can get away with that intellectual laziness in sports but you shouldn’t be doing that in the more important things in life.

I haven’t read Fleury’s book but I did follow a lot of his media appearances after the Penn State story became public. Some of his specific claims made me sceptical – the 1-in-4 people having been sexually abused figure seemed awfully high to me ( I’m at a point where I never trust stated statistics unless I can see the process). I can’t say I put in any effort to try to look up the figure though. The overall message though, I can’t disagree or find fault with that.

When it comes down to it, I don’t know what it’s like to be in the shoes of Fleury or other victims, or what the best course of action is – I have no experience as a victim or helping victims. I do believe though that it’s importance to be supportive of victims and have their voices heard – not only for the victims who are telling their story but so those who haven’t spoken up yet can feel comfortable to do so.

by Roke on Dec 14, 2011 5:52 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

I was going to mention Hickey’s 2009 article, but I felt the piece was already pretty long at over 3000 words, and like you said, Wysh covered it.

1/4 also seems high to me, but I think it also depends on the definition of abuse. At the same time there is a ton of undocumented abuse so it could definitely be that high. Statistics though, as you say, are only really worthwhile when we can verify the process. Very difficult to verify that number.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 14, 2011 5:58 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Yeah. Whether that’s high or not I don’t think it really changes much in what we should do though. I can’t imagine how difficult it is to come forward as a victim and stances like Hickey’s can’t make it any easier.

by Roke on Dec 14, 2011 6:03 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I think that’s the biggest problem with Hickey’s defense of himself. He keeps insisting he understands what it’s like. He doesn’t, we don’t. Admitting you don’t know something is a mark of intelligence.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 14, 2011 6:04 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I desperately want some columnist to take the question — “Why did Fleury maintain a relationship with James/not report him years earlier?”, recognizing now that Hickey’s timeline is bullshit — and run with it right through the ugly psychology of abuse to teach us a thing or five about reality. It would be very timely with Penn State and Syracuse also in the news. I think it would do a great service to victims and survivors, show them that they’re not alone, that all these strange feelings of guilt and shame and powerlessness are normal for their situation but not healthy, and encourage them to speak out against their abuser and their abuser’s enablers (real enablers, not fellow victims unable to speak out themselves).

However, because I have no first-hand experience, and don’t have the time to do the amount of research I’d need to be able to speak about it intelligently in the time needed for this to remain timely, I don’t feel qualified to do so. Fortunately, we have folks like Daniel and Julie who will tell us the truth, and keep telling us the truth.

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.

by Doogie2K on Dec 15, 2011 10:02 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Unfortunately MSM and truth don’t coincide very often anymore.

by Chris Boyle on Dec 15, 2011 10:15 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Did they ever?

They try to capture the spirit of the thing

Your 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins

Hockey Blog Adventure is my blog but I'm way more active on Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Dec 15, 2011 10:17 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Probably never did, we just didn’t know it.

by Chris Boyle on Dec 15, 2011 10:18 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

The Gazette published this yesterday in kind of an unspoken rebuttal to Hickey, but it’s not as detailed as you’re looking for.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 15, 2011 10:21 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

phickey@montrealgazette.com

Write him directly and let him know how you feel. Put it up on your Facebook pages. Publicize this.

He knows he deserves the roasting he is getting.

Loathing the Habs with every fibre of my being since 1963.

by Pyramid Power on Dec 15, 2011 6:52 PM EST up reply actions

I tried explaining yesterday to those defending hickey, how he was wrong, allll day yesterday on HIO… I even defended hickey… but after his smug retort… I think im done with that site… for good…

Great article sir.

by crosseyed_mofo on Dec 14, 2011 6:05 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

Thanks John. His radio appearance really, really killed it for me. His response to Daniel, who’s story is above, was unacceptable.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 14, 2011 6:08 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Great article, Mr. Berkshire. I’d sort of filed Hickey under “Ignorant Twits,” but the dishonesty, not to mention the veiled taunt at Fleury for refusing to go on OTR with him, take this in an entirely different league.

by Chunklets on Dec 14, 2011 6:24 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

He’s very hard to defend at this point, that’s for sure. And thank you.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 14, 2011 6:27 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Couldn't have said it better, Andrew.

Like you Andrew, HIO was where I first garnered interest in writing about the Habs. It was there I met you and Chris, and was led to EOTP, when Robert was running it.

The guys there have been more than generous to us in linking back to our articles and Hickey has even offered his opinions to some of our previous posts.

For that matter I even defended him when those Boston radio idiots got on his case.

Unfortunately Hickey’s recent accusation against Fleury was way overboard for my liking. Compounded with his column earlier this season on Derek Boogaard, it made a decision simple to no longer comment on any HIO posts, barring an apology.

It;s clear now that it will not happen. Hickey’s radio responses took care of that and he was more focused on the fact that Fleury refused to confront him on OTR.

A few ignorant trolls (which now comprises about 80% over there) called my decision childish. A message to them, in a manner they expect and understand, “Go fuck yourself.”

One supporter was Robert Rice, who has decided to do likewise and is pulling his Habs Future series from HIO. Robert beat us to the punch and will be posting on another site.

I can understand an editor defending his writer, as it is a common occurrence in a declining MSM environment. But with the MSM world taking a beating in the last two years, you’d think they would wise up.

As for burning bridges, Andrew, there’s a lot of fish in the sea. None to worry.

Kevin van Steendelaar

http://www.twitter.com/kvansteendelaar

but don't forget...

http://www.twitter.com/HabsEOTP

by Kevin van Steendelaar on Dec 14, 2011 6:31 PM EST reply actions 2 recs

This may end up hurting the Gazette more than they think. We shall see. Thanks for your encouragement, Kevin. It means a lot.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 14, 2011 6:35 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I was hoping one of the EOTP gang would write a post on this

and I wasn’t disappointed.

Thanks for taking the time Andrew to write this up.

I’ve left HIO behind for awhile now, but hearing a buzz about Hickey’s article, I decided to head over and find the link. The first article was bad enough, but the second was so full of the usual puffery and dog whistles that it went from cloying to nauseating.

“I have an opinion…” + the last line regarding Fleury’s decision not to go on air with Hickey, all work to accomplish Hickey’s true goal in the second article which was to double down on the ignorance and through the magic of rhetorical handwaving convince his readers that he’s the brave one.

Yes, Hickey, you are so brave for taking your stance based on a small minded and mean spirited ignorance.

What a tool.

by subdoxastic on Dec 14, 2011 6:46 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

Thanks Adam.

The radio interview is what really sealed the deal for me. After the first article I was annoyed and hoped he was just ignorant. When he doubled down I was shocked.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 14, 2011 6:53 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I am not surprised that Pat Hickey wrote an article that wasn’t well researched and used editorial tricks to present his opinion. He has proven to me way to many times that he isn’t interested in progressing and is more secure in settling into the comfy chair he has and spinning uninformed views based on his prejudiced mindset.

His arguments were ridiculous and his defense even worse.

by Chris Boyle on Dec 14, 2011 9:33 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

I thought it was interesting that he went so quickly to the MTL media staple of a false dichotomy between two people/players. His characterizations of Fleury as the bottle fed superstar and Kennedy as the gritty underdog who fought hard to make it were so Price vs Halak reminiscent, and we all know he lost that argument as well.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 14, 2011 10:01 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I'm confused.

Thank you for speaking out—and for dissecting all the reasons these articles are not just bad journalism, they’re dishonest and ugly.

I’m in the U.S., and I knew nothing about hockey or Fleury or Kennedy before the Sandusky shit hit the fan here last month. What I have learned about both men in the last month has totally impressed me—and maybe convinced me that hockey would nicely fill in the months between January and August. (Growing up in Texas we are weaned on football the way it seems Canadians are weaned on hockey.)

I’m also a survivor, so that more than anything has me fascinated with Kennedy and Fleury. No one, NO ONE in the U.S. with their kind of exposure—especially Fleury’s—is talking about this, let alone agitating so publicly and insistently for change, both in legislature and culture. And as much as I appreciate Kennedy’s quieter method of
working within the system and the law, Fleury is the one who’s reduced me to tears any number of times with his passionate defense of victims and his calling out the media on how they’d rather focus on prurient details and revictimize survivors than anything else. I don’t know if I can convey what it’s like to have someone stand up like he has and insist on both the dignity and the validity of something that we are so used to hiding, as if the shame was ours rather than those who preyed upon us.

Which is why I’m confused. I’ve commented here and there where I could, and sent my own letter to the Gazette complaining about Pat Hickey’s article, and I signed up here just so I could ask the question that’s been bugging me since this started up yesterday: Why aren’t more people—and especially media people—doing what you’re doing and defending Fleury? There’s plenty of information available out there to inform one enough to write a decent article about the long-term effects of abuse. I’ve seen comments and letters, but almost NO response from the Canadian media about this. Everyone in any position of power seems content to just sit and let the storm play out, and I honestly don’t get it.

It’s enough to make me think that Graham James still has the media under his spell.

After I read Hickey’s “defense,” I knew better than to try to listen to his interview—and I applaud Fleury for taking a dignified pass on that one. But, what, Fleury needs to be squeaky clean like Wayne Gretsky to have anyone on his side? I can see the man has his faults, but so do we all. Why, then, is the Canadian press—and especially the sports press, not speaking out? Why hasn’t someone, somewhere, written a blistering riposte about the facts that Hickey conveniently ignores in his article? Besides your post, I’ve seen two other blog posts from survivors that do a fabulous job of ripping back. But that’s it.

Frankly, I find the silence disturbing for a great many reasons.

"I read a lot, but I'm quite illiterate."
~~J.D. Salinger

by klostes on Dec 14, 2011 9:52 PM EST reply actions 3 recs

Thank you for your impassioned reply here klostes.

The silence is deafening right now. I know of two mainstream journalists here in Montreal that have spoken up. Brian Wilde of CTV spoke out in several tweets condemning it, but he doesn’t have a regular column or TV spot to speak freely at the moment. The other is Mitch Melnick who interviewed Hickey on the Radio here. Melnick’s cohosts were also baffled by the whole thing.

Bruce Arthur (National Post) said he disagreed with Hickey but wouldn’t go further than that and got mad at me when I suggested that wasn’t enough.

Meanwhile in most of print journalism it’s just silence. Honestly I think media today is so threatened by the fact that it’s a shrinking industry that they’ve become a fraternity instead of an institution. No one wants to say anything bad about a peer and everyone looks out for each other instead of calling out the people doing a poor job.

This has lead to a degradation in overall content as there’s nothing to weed out the people who have no integrity. It needs to change if that industry is to survive.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 14, 2011 10:14 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I don’t really understand the genesis of the attack. It is nonsensical.

by Chris Boyle on Dec 14, 2011 10:34 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

He doesn’t like Fleury. That much is clear. That he blames Fleury for being an owner of the Hitmen and commends Kennedy, who was also a part owner, is a mind blowing omission. One that any journalist worth his salt would never make.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 14, 2011 10:35 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

It is just senile that he would go on the attack essentially unprovoked all based on one-sided bad blood.

by Chris Boyle on Dec 14, 2011 10:43 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Also incredibly unwise. The pressure behind this is growing instead of dying off after 24 hours. Not good for Hickey.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 14, 2011 10:48 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Thank you for actually talking about this intelligently—and insistently, and for providing a respectful forum for discussion. That means a lot.

Shrinking industry, indeed, but this isn’t helping. Hickey struck me very much as an “old school” sports journalist when I took a quick troll through his previous articles—and this kind of experiment says to me that he doesn’t understand the power of the internet, or what kind of blowback an attack like this can generate if enough people take up the issue. It’s just getting enough people to actually take it up.

This is not a comfortable subject—which is, in part, why Fleury makes such an excellent spokesman. From all the video I’ve seen of his hockey games, from what he’s said in his book, and from the other books and articles I read (Hey, I’m a historian by trade; I know how to do my research), he’s taking on this issue very much the same way he took on hockey. He also doesn’t care if he makes the media uncomfortable—in fact, he seems to enjoy it at times, and he calls them on their bullshit to their faces. They are not always sure how to respond—and those two things together, the subject and their discomfort/irritation with him equal staying silent.

Shame on them, though, for not having the journalistic integrity to speak out now.

Okay, one more confusing thing: Habs? Wha…? ;-) I’ll go look it up, but I have to admit to be SO confused with the first few hockey books and articles I got that referenced the Habs, until I finally figured out that they meant the Montreal team.

"I read a lot, but I'm quite illiterate."
~~J.D. Salinger

by klostes on Dec 15, 2011 1:10 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Thank YOU for being so brave in talking about your history.

As for Habs, it comes from a nickname the team had back in it’s formation. The fans called them the Habitants, which is what they called themselves as well. It kind of signified how the people felt they were part of the team as well.

The Habs have a rich cultural history as much as a hockey one, which is a big reason why the fans are so passionate.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 15, 2011 1:27 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Bravery is in the eye of the beholder, and I’m totally quaking in my boots here as I post in my own blog about this. But thank you.

And thank you for the explanation on the Habs name and heritage—I’m going to have to do some reading up on their history, I can see. (Though my friend who is a die-hard Bruins fan had a conniption when I mentioned your team. ;-) That’s one more good thing out of all this; I am having a great deal of fun exploring the ins and outs of hockey and its fan communities.

"I read a lot, but I'm quite illiterate."
~~J.D. Salinger

by klostes on Dec 15, 2011 3:16 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I’m happy to hear you’re enjoying learning about the game. Hockey can be an intimidating sell if you didn’t grow up with it. The world can always handle another Habs fan.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 15, 2011 3:28 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Or if it can’t handle another Habs fan, you could always check out the Dallas Stars fpr your Texas roots, they need all the support they can get down there, says this Orange & Black fan :)

by VorAbaddon on Dec 16, 2011 7:37 PM EST up reply actions

Roots aside, I have a really hard time seeing Texas as a hockey state. Just Does Not Compute. I’d keep expecting the field goal team to run out on the ice at some point. ;-)

"I read a lot, but I'm quite illiterate."
~~J.D. Salinger

by klostes on Dec 16, 2011 9:21 PM EST up reply actions

Hey, at least this time I understood why the goalie was pulled at the end of last night’s game. I’ll catch on, eventually. ;-)

"I read a lot, but I'm quite illiterate."
~~J.D. Salinger

by klostes on Dec 16, 2011 9:16 PM EST up reply actions

Very few in the mainstream media, especially in hockey, will counterpoint another’s opinion, especially one like this. Bruce Dowbiggin of the Globe and Mail is one of those who will do so, depending on the issue.

Most will merely say I agree/disagree. Bruce Arthur of the National Post tweeted shortly after the first article emerged and said he couldn’t back Hickey on that. He has since said/wrote nothing on the issue.

I’ll be curious to see if it is brought up on “The Reporters”, which airs on Sundays here in Canada on TSN

Kevin van Steendelaar

http://www.twitter.com/kvansteendelaar

but don't forget...

http://www.twitter.com/HabsEOTP

by Kevin van Steendelaar on Dec 14, 2011 10:19 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

So basically there’s no arguments? That makes for boring news—no disagreements or discussions.

I would love to know one way or the other if it does come up on the show. Hopefully if the internet keeps the waters stirred they won’t be able to ignore it?

"I read a lot, but I'm quite illiterate."
~~J.D. Salinger

by klostes on Dec 15, 2011 1:14 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Fleury an "Enabler" of Child Sex Abuse

Sent ant email to Bruce Dowbiggin 4 days ago…..No reply….Nothing in print……Story seems to be fading away…..Wish there was some way to lambast Hickey.

by brad008 on Dec 17, 2011 3:22 PM EST up reply actions

The story is definitely being pushed away by MSM. JM getting fired doesn’t help.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 17, 2011 4:24 PM EST up reply actions

Why the silence?

It’s simple: It’s a volcano nobody wants to wake up.

There are SO MANY predators that there wouldn’t be enough prisons. There are SO MANY victims and survivors that there wouldn’t be enough resources to help them.

Everyone is hoping the problem will fix itself by itself by someone else.

And that’s why we, the little people, cannot have an influence on the population. That’s why the Internet is dangerous. Their only hope is that we stay divided, on small blogs, not united together into a large community.

Dive and conquer. Simple.

by Daniel Bigras on Dec 14, 2011 11:55 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs

I am honestly more amazed today when I meet someone who was NOT sexually molested as a child, if one adopts the widest definition of abuse there is. One of my dearest friends once had an elderly neighbor try to touch her on the breast when she was 13 and her body had begun to change. It’s nowhere near what many of us endure, but it’s left a lasting mark on her.

People would argue that it’s the over-sexualization of our culture that has led to this; I would argue that it’s the repressive cultural mores that do far more damage, creating unnecessary pressure on people. THAT along with the “over-sexed” culture makes for a potent mix, and sadly, the children are going to be the ones who pay with our lives until the rest of the culture gets over themselves and realizes we have to talk about this, take it out of the closet and air it out and make sex not such a taboo subject that it taints even the most innocent victims when it touches them.

And so true, that everyone wants the problem to go away on its own.

Here’s to the power of the internet, and the voice of the people. Trouble is, we have to stand publicly, and while I am more comfortable with the relative anonymity of the internet (though if you knew me in real life, you could find these posts pretty easy), I am not yet to the point where Fleury and Kennedy and others are. But I’m working on it.

"I read a lot, but I'm quite illiterate."
~~J.D. Salinger

by klostes on Dec 15, 2011 1:20 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Thank you, Mr. Berkshire...

for a very thoughtful, yet passionate post. I visit the site often, but don’t post very much. (While I enjoy hockey, I don’t know enough about stats and metrics to post knowledgeably). But on this particular matter, I do know something. I was abused also. I could not find the words to rebut Mr. Hickey. not because I don’t know how to express myself, but because, in my mind, attempting to rebut him would have been yet again fighting my abuser. People like Mr. Hickey don’t realize how much transference occurs in the mind of an abused person from the abuser to any authority figure (and a newspaper columnist with a bully pulpit certainly qualifies).

I am not at all surprised Fleury said nothing about James when they were co-investors in t he Calgary Hitmen or that he continued to work with him. Abuse deprives you of your autonomy as a person to the extent where you don’t even feel you have the right to fight back. You “accommodate” your abuser. I applaud Sheldon Kennedy for speaking out but I applaud Theo Fleury no less for doing so later. As you eloquently pointed out, the abused have to find a way back to some sense of normalcy (life can never ever be quite “normal”) in their own time and in their own way.

Edmund Burke said all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Well, you did a not-inconsiderable thing today. Thank you, not just for speaking out, but for speaking for me — despite the (as yet unknown) cost to you. Burke would have been proud — as I hope Mrs. Berkshire and the rest of your family are.

by hansolo759 on Dec 14, 2011 10:56 PM EST reply actions 3 recs

I can’t tell you how great it feels to have you say this Han. Thank you so much for this and it tells me I’ve done the right thing.

Thank you as well for sharing as I can’t imagine how hard it is to do so, even on the semi-anonymous nature of the internet. Everyone who shared about their past today or at any point has shown more courage than Hickey ever has.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 14, 2011 11:08 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Solid piece, Andrew.

And important.

When this issue first arose a couple of years ago, just subsequent to the publication of Fleury’s book, I took umbrage at Pat Hickey’s accusations of hypocrisy and emailed him, noting that, although he may have some sincere and heartfelt views on things, he was simply not in any position to render such harsh judgment on an individual who had been repeatedly sexually assaulted over a period of years. Most certainly not on how that kind of visceral trauma might affect an individual’s judgment as he or she grew into adulthood.

For the record, I have no problem noting part of Hickey’s contempt was based on his strong belief Fleury would never have the courage to press charges against Graham James, for fear it would trigger lawsuits from anyone James might have victimized subsequent to Fleury’s minority ownership in the Hitmen.

Fleury eventually pressed charges.

There was no acknowledgment of this from Pat Hickey of which I’m aware.

The motivation behind Hickey’s piece remains a mystery to everyone but himself, but it is a question that deserves to be answered as the simple notion of it being in the public’s best interest appears elusive.

by JD__ on Dec 14, 2011 11:06 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

What’s even worse is what Daniel pointed out above. Kennedy was also an investor in the Hitmen. So his one major stated reason as to why Fleury is a bad role model also (by his flawed logic) indicts Kennedy. St00pid.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 14, 2011 11:14 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I’m not sure I’ll add anything that great to this discussion but sometimes with certain things some people just don’t get it. It’s almost like you have to experience it yourself to fully understand what "it’ is.

I have family members who suffered abuse in my family and they still deal with the effects of it today, more than 40 years later. The person who did the abuse did such mental damage to them that they make excuses for him and for what he did. He has that much hold over them.

Another issue as well is when we think of abusers we tend to sometimes think of them as constantly being monsters. But sometimes they can do some nice things and appear to be the kindest people around (without any agendas). That plays with your mind so much.

My family members were often so conflicted because of this. Sometimes their abuser was nice and a great guy and other times a complete evil bastard. With these conflicting messages they often didn’t know what to think and it’s the same even today. I can see clearly because it didn’t happen to me but for them it’s almost impossible.

I’d bet there were many times that Fleury thought his abuser wasn’t that bad of a guy and that maybe he was ‘wrong’ somehow and was judging him unfairly – which makes all of this even worse. Hell, I’ve seen my family think that way so many times I’ve lost count. I always hear “yeah, but…”

I’m really in shock over his article and his radio interview. I couldn’t believe how insensitive he was to Daniel and the lady who called. It’s shameful.

My wish is that anyone who suffered abuse knows it was not their fault and if they are angry at themselves for it, they should not be. It’s the abuser who is to blame.

by DarthAlexander on Dec 14, 2011 11:25 PM EST reply actions 2 recs

Damn straight Alexander. And Hickey doesn’t realize how much truth is in your comment. You shouldn’t have been unsure if you could add to the conversation, you clearly did, my friend.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 14, 2011 11:32 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I just want to express my respect and admiration both to Andrew for writing this, and Daniel for speaking out over the past few days.

I'm just as ridiculous on Twitter

by theactivestick on Dec 15, 2011 12:09 AM EST reply actions 1 recs

<3 Laura!

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 15, 2011 12:12 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Thanks, much appreciated.

by Daniel Bigras on Dec 15, 2011 1:11 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I had never heard of Pat Hickey before reading the article and listening to the interview (living in NY, a bit of a startup Hockey/Habs fan). Is he some sort of print version of Don Cherry – part of the culture and untouchable in some ways?

Any correlation you can draw to an American football or baseball journalist?

by TrevaDaddy on Dec 15, 2011 6:30 AM EST reply actions 1 recs

He’s definitely not equal to Cherry. I’m not sure how untouchable he is. He’s a beat guy who’s been doing it for a long long time, so think of any local newspaper sports reporter for a specific team who’s been around at least 30 years, that’s Hickey.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 15, 2011 8:28 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Thanks Andrew for you comment. Another person I got ticked off at was Ron Mcclean. When these accusations came out (about Fleury’s abuser) Don went off the handle and ranted about the guy and was livid but Ron stood up for him. Don looked like he wanted to smack hi. I hope to hell Ron’s changed his mind since then.

by DarthAlexander on Dec 15, 2011 8:48 AM EST reply actions 1 recs

Ron has always been a stuffy guy who sticks up for people he likes instead of issues that matter. That’s why he’s so incredibly biased against Burrows and constantly sucks up to Colin Campell.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 15, 2011 9:07 AM EST up reply actions

Well done, Andrew.

Your 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins

Hockey Blog Adventure is my blog but I'm way more active on Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Dec 15, 2011 9:51 AM EST reply actions 1 recs

Thanks man.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 15, 2011 9:54 AM EST up reply actions

one journalist taking a small stand...

Here’s Ed Willes of the Vancouver Province. His actual calling out of Hickey is buried at the end and handled with kid gloves, but it was a brave article to write nonetheless: http://www.theprovince.com/sports/Kennedy+abuse+hands+Graham+James+fallout+beyond+expected/5861821/story.html

Thanks for the post, Andrew. And for the comments above to those who have commented. I don’t know how you all stay so civil and well-spoken.

by vadim sharifijanov on Dec 15, 2011 10:33 AM EST reply actions 1 recs

It has to start somewhere and kudos to Willes for saying something when most won’t.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 15, 2011 10:48 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Thanks for the link. I sent him an email, as he did the same mistake as others, thinking that James was hired as a coach by Fleury, which is completely false.

James got the franchise in 1994, the 18 investors came on-board in 1995. Fleury was just one of 19 voices.

by Daniel Bigras on Dec 15, 2011 12:54 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I think this is the most eloquent thing I’ve ever read from you Andrew. Compelling, well organized, complete and sympathetic to all parties. You demonstrate in this piece why dinosaurs like Pat Hickey:

The “lazy journalist who doesn’t care about the facts and wanted to push his agenda.”

are becoming irrelavent.

The nub of the issue is that all things published should be vetted. I may think that someone is show-boating, but if I publish without considering the implications of what I am saying, it is irresponsible. What Hickey perhaps missed here is that this was not a good opportunity to be provocative. It was in very bad taste to be provocative.

It does remind me of a good clip I saw on youtube, however, about the Michael Bloomberg and why we need people like him. People willing to voice (or unable to filter) ideas or opinions that are over the line. Simply because this makes it very clear where the line is. These people actually cause others who may have been sitting back to stand up and take notice of issues that should be important to everyone.

Hickey wasn’t consciously doing this, of course. But indirectly he has. Not meant to be a defence. Call it a backhanded compliment?

by Topham on Dec 15, 2011 10:34 AM EST reply actions 1 recs

Thanks a lot Chris,

Great point raised as well. It’s almost an unintended positive consequence of Hickey’s ignorance.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 15, 2011 10:54 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Andrew that was one great article.

I can honestly say that while reading your article and some of the comments and stories attached to it, that it stirred up memories of a friend that had to go through a similar situation. I can honestly say thank you for people like Theo Fleury and Sheldon Kennedy for helping to bring this issue to the front pages so everyone is aware of it.

As for Hickey, it disgusts me that he can sit back and say he knows people that have been affected by a similar situation, yet he still goes off on why Fleury waited as long as he did, and that he is not the right spokesperson for this movement. I wonder if any of the victims from within Hickey’s circle might look at him in a different light after he made his views and thoughts public. For one, there is no wrong time to come forward, and there is no wrong time for the victim to remain silent. When they are ready to discuss what happened, and have worked up the courage to step into the public eye how dare he condemn anyone for doing so, no matter the time between the abuse and when they come forward. Until you are in their shoes and understand what they go through on a day-to-day basis you have NO idea as to what their thoughts and feelings are. Knowing someone that has gone through something similar, and actually being the one to go through it are two totally different ends of the spectrum.

At the end of the article you say that actions like this only shame people into staying silent and this is exactly right. There is no reason, or excuse for the articles and thoughts of Hickey on this situation and I am amazed, or a better word would be appalled that his supervisors at the Gazette have not done anything about it. Are they not basically now doing what Hickey was accusing Fleury of doing? They are staying silent because they don’t want to get involved….the only difference between Hickey, his editors and Fleury; is that Fleury has the proper thought process to know that he is a part of the solution whereas Hickey and his bosses are now a bigger part of the problem. If Hickey wants to talk about being an enabler, then maybe he should think about how he is now making other potential abuse victims feel when they read this and are deciding if they should come forward after waiting for 15-20 years. Shame on you Pat Hickey, shame on you.

They did it for Savy, they did it for Horton, they did it for each other, they did it for us. I give you the 2011 Stanley Cup Champions....The Boston Bruins!!

I wish Matthew Stafford was Drew Brees. (This is what happens when you back your team and they lose),

by beachguy113 on Dec 15, 2011 11:11 AM EST reply actions 1 recs

One last thing...

You can tell Hickey just does not get it when he ends his most recent article with " Landsberg asked if I would be on OTR with Fleury. I accepted, Fleury declined".

What does Fleury owe you Hickey? Absolutely nothing. This last statement for one reason or another makes me furious. Fleury has much bigger and more society driven positive things to get involved with then sitting on a talk show to watch you try and back pedal and explain yourself.

They did it for Savy, they did it for Horton, they did it for each other, they did it for us. I give you the 2011 Stanley Cup Champions....The Boston Bruins!!

I wish Matthew Stafford was Drew Brees. (This is what happens when you back your team and they lose),

by beachguy113 on Dec 15, 2011 11:28 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

The worst part is I don’t think Hickey wants to back pedal. He wanted to go on OTR to continue to question Fleury and essentially bully him. So remarkably callous.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 15, 2011 11:33 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

If that is the case I almost wish Fleury would have accepted to go on OTR. The national stage for Hickey to put his foot in his mouth might have been just what was needed. It was mentioned above that Landsberg would not let Fleury get bullied and I believe this. I am pretty sure that Landsberg is a big supporter of Fleury and what he is doing to put this horrible situation into something that helps other in the future.

They did it for Savy, they did it for Horton, they did it for each other, they did it for us. I give you the 2011 Stanley Cup Champions....The Boston Bruins!!

I wish Matthew Stafford was Drew Brees. (This is what happens when you back your team and they lose),

by beachguy113 on Dec 15, 2011 11:41 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

The thing about Landsberg is that although he portrays himself as a douche, he’s probably the most empathetic guy in the business up in Canada, and he’s also not afraid to piss off his colleagues. It might have ended up being good but I think we all agree that Fleury was justified in not partaking.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 15, 2011 11:50 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Landsberg is a provocateur. His job wouldn’t have lasted this long if he wasn’t.

by Chris Boyle on Dec 15, 2011 11:53 AM EST up reply actions

Absolutely. I have a lot of respect for him, and the format of OTR is genius.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 15, 2011 11:55 AM EST up reply actions

I totally agree that Fleury had no reason to accept and if he wants to or doesnt want to it makes no difference to me. Its all up to Fleury.

They did it for Savy, they did it for Horton, they did it for each other, they did it for us. I give you the 2011 Stanley Cup Champions....The Boston Bruins!!

I wish Matthew Stafford was Drew Brees. (This is what happens when you back your team and they lose),

by beachguy113 on Dec 15, 2011 11:54 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

He used that almost to prove his innocence. Like Fleury is afraid to confront him because Hickey is right. The guy is totally lost.

by Chris Boyle on Dec 15, 2011 11:33 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

If there is a stronger word then lost please let me know because I cant seem to find it right now. Not that I have been a big follower of Hickey prior to this but I cant remember someone going so overboard on such a topic.

They did it for Savy, they did it for Horton, they did it for each other, they did it for us. I give you the 2011 Stanley Cup Champions....The Boston Bruins!!

I wish Matthew Stafford was Drew Brees. (This is what happens when you back your team and they lose),

by beachguy113 on Dec 15, 2011 11:43 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

“I am braver than you because I am willing to talk about your abuse on the radio with you”

by Simon Lamarche on Dec 15, 2011 11:26 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs

Thank you man. The eloquent and engaging comments and emails I’ve received in the last day are amazing. There are things more important than sports, and I think we’ve all really hit the right note in response to Hickey’s garbage.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 15, 2011 11:28 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

The comments and everything are well deserved and hopefully something even more positive continues to come of this situation. I applaud you on taking a stance against someone that is close to you and the possibility of burning a few bridges. That being said, if one bridge is burned it isnt a bridge worth using anyways and other more positive options will open in the future as a result.

They did it for Savy, they did it for Horton, they did it for each other, they did it for us. I give you the 2011 Stanley Cup Champions....The Boston Bruins!!

I wish Matthew Stafford was Drew Brees. (This is what happens when you back your team and they lose),

by beachguy113 on Dec 15, 2011 11:45 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

May the bridges I burn light the way.

by Chris Boyle on Dec 15, 2011 11:48 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I’ve always preferred boats to bridges anyway!

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 15, 2011 11:52 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I hope you dont mind but I have posted the link to this article on numerous boards and my own personal facebook account etc. I know its a small part but I want this to be known by as many people as possible.

They did it for Savy, they did it for Horton, they did it for each other, they did it for us. I give you the 2011 Stanley Cup Champions....The Boston Bruins!!

I wish Matthew Stafford was Drew Brees. (This is what happens when you back your team and they lose),

by beachguy113 on Dec 15, 2011 12:00 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Definitely don’t mind. I’m hoping it gets spread like crazy. I’m waiting for someone to post it on HIO and get me banned or something.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 15, 2011 12:16 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

In order to be able to present a solid viewpoint on almost anything you need to have empathy. Take interest in the understanding of both sides.

This is extremely bizarre to me because Hickey hasn’t looked at anything past his own extremely biased viewpoint. He has somehow ignored the pain James has caused, he has ignored the benefits of Fleury finally exposing himself when people have speculated about it for 10-15 years and Fleury was so embarrassed that he aggressively denied it. He has ignored facts like Kennedy being a part owner all to accomplish what?

To expose Fleury for profiting off his book? The lack of empathy is beyond ridiculous. How can you claim that you understand because it happened to friends and then be so ignorant to your “friends” pain?

He is stuck in a different generation and that has been severely exposed with this close minded, vendetta based nonsense.

by Chris Boyle on Dec 15, 2011 11:30 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs

The lack of empathy is really abhorrent. And his dichotomy of empathy for people involved with the Hitmen vs empathy for Fleury is so off base I can’t believe he ever brought it up.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 15, 2011 11:37 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

“Fleury is a monster for exposing teenagers to the pain that he endured that he should have toughened up and got over.”

It is absolutely absurd that he fears for the safety of innocent youth but discounts that violation on Fleury’s behalf. Like it would ruin their lives, but not his.

How in hell did he think that what he said would not be received this way? Child molestation is essentially the lowest crime on the totem pole.

I had a football coach who wanted to check to make sure our protective cups fit properly.

Is this supposed to evoke sympathy for him? Provide that he understands? I would say it is bizarre, but his general hockey writing is just as ridiculous so I think that this is consistent with his other ridiculous opinions.

by Chris Boyle on Dec 15, 2011 11:46 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

It’s one of those things where the more you read it the more insane it looks.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 15, 2011 11:48 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Totally agree. I actually had to go over and read his articles at the Gazette a few times because I could not believe what I was reading.

They did it for Savy, they did it for Horton, they did it for each other, they did it for us. I give you the 2011 Stanley Cup Champions....The Boston Bruins!!

I wish Matthew Stafford was Drew Brees. (This is what happens when you back your team and they lose),

by beachguy113 on Dec 15, 2011 11:50 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Odd as it may be, I gave him the benefit of the doubt until I heard the radio interview.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 15, 2011 11:53 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I am glad I didnt hear this radio interview and I have no desire to listen to it. I have read enough of his stuff and there will be no more from now on.

They did it for Savy, they did it for Horton, they did it for each other, they did it for us. I give you the 2011 Stanley Cup Champions....The Boston Bruins!!

I wish Matthew Stafford was Drew Brees. (This is what happens when you back your team and they lose),

by beachguy113 on Dec 15, 2011 11:55 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Oh if you didn’t hear the interview on TSN 990… Wow, you’d be even more outraged. The way he treated Daniel, who was calm and collected, was disgraceful.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 15, 2011 11:58 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

This is true. It didn’t originally bother me because I think the guy is a flake.

After I read this and saw how incoherent his premise and rebuttal was, it irritated me at how audacious and absurd this man is.

by Chris Boyle on Dec 15, 2011 11:50 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I’m just hoping we can keep the pressure up now. Greg Brady from Fan590 RT’d the article this morning so even MSM are starting to notice.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 15, 2011 11:55 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

phickey@montrealgazette.com

Write him and let him know in no uncertain terms how you feel.

He deserves it.

Loathing the Habs with every fibre of my being since 1963.

by Pyramid Power on Dec 15, 2011 6:49 PM EST up reply actions

Already done.

Did it yesterday after reading this and his articles on the Gazette. The Gazette will no longer get my traffic until Hickey is gone.

That seems like something we should try to do to get our point across. I know its small but you have to start somewhere. Maybe that will clue the Gazette in as to what this idiots stance has really started.

They did it for Savy, they did it for Horton, they did it for each other, they did it for us. I give you the 2011 Stanley Cup Champions....The Boston Bruins!!

I wish Matthew Stafford was Drew Brees. (This is what happens when you back your team and they lose),

by beachguy113 on Dec 16, 2011 2:15 PM EST up reply actions

Kudos for challenging this Andrew

and taking a fine tooth comb to the facts and details presented, like a journalist should.

Also, to Daniel and klostes I’ve tremendous respect for your courage in openly addressing your respective histories and hope that backlash over this Hickey debacle generates further public discussion, and hopefully some healing for others in similar situations. Vocal survivors like yourselves give others strength to find their own voice. Maybe some good will come of this idiotic character assassination yet.

by TomServo42 on Dec 15, 2011 11:20 AM EST reply actions 2 recs

Damn straight for Daniel, Klostes and Han. Stepping up like they did and sharing their experience is so incredibly brave. Not to forget Julie either. We’re all better for having known these people.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 15, 2011 11:30 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs

This is a great comment.

Without the surviviors coming forward this is an issue we might still not be aware of. I have no idea of the courage needed to come forward with something like this.

Thank you for your courage. (sorry if that isnt the right word but emotions are a little high right now).

They did it for Savy, they did it for Horton, they did it for each other, they did it for us. I give you the 2011 Stanley Cup Champions....The Boston Bruins!!

I wish Matthew Stafford was Drew Brees. (This is what happens when you back your team and they lose),

by beachguy113 on Dec 15, 2011 11:48 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs

Courage. Hum. Many people tell me that, that I have a lot of courage. I dunno if it’s really courage. Cuz there are people who had it a lot worst than me. I was not raped. Many people are, 20% of women are. They have/had it a lot worst than me.

So, it impresses me when people call me courageous because there are many people MUCH MORE courageous than me.

I feel honored, more than anything, to be able to help. For me it’s a privilege and a duty to help in my own way.

In short, it make me shy when I’m told I’m courageous.

by Daniel Bigras on Dec 16, 2011 1:27 PM EST up reply actions

Thank you, too, but like Daniel said, it doesn’t feel brave—-hey, I’m still half hiding behind a psuedonym. I’ve been told I’m stubborn, more than anything. We survive what we have to survive, and each of us, as seen in this discussion, walks our own unique journey that’s neither more nor less than anyone else’s.

Honestly? You have all been so encouraging and sympathetic that it’s a bit overwhelming. I never expected to wander into a hockey forum for a team I know nothing about, and beyond finally finding some people talking about this whole debacle, discover such a wonderful community. You all are fabulous, and if I wind up a Habs fan after all, it’s going to be because of Andrew and the rest of you who have posted here. If nothing else, you’ve all convinced me that hockey fans are some of the most fabulous people around, and it’s a community I’d like to be a part of.

BTW, my name’s Lisa, and I am very, very honored to have “met” you all here. (And now it’s back to watching U of Montana try to beat Sam Houston State in their division 1 playoff. Thankfully, there’s no hockey to compete with the game onight. ;-)

"I read a lot, but I'm quite illiterate."
~~J.D. Salinger

by klostes on Dec 16, 2011 10:49 PM EST up reply actions

Well done

Hey Andrew,

really want to thank you for the column. While i fortunately do not have any direct personal experience with abuse, i was angered by Hickey’s article, then appalled by Stu Cowan and Hickey’s radio defence, then disappointed with the silence from most of the print media. It bothered me enough that I’ve decided to unfollow all the HIO staff, delete the app, stop reading the site and the gazette’s site.

I think Brian Wilde had it right, this is a moment when all the so-called bloggers in their mother’s basement are schooling the majority of the main stream media. I had expected more from a number of print journalists but perhaps shouldn’t be surprised since so many of them share the same employer. Radio has definitely been braver with a number of sports radio people in Vancouver calling out Hickey (BMAC did his editorial yesterday denouncing the column) and Brady at the Fan in Toronto giving it significant airtime.

Keep up the good work and here’s hoping a number of Habs fans feel the same way that I do an migrate away from HIO to sites which are more principled.

by Blair Purda on Dec 15, 2011 11:58 AM EST reply actions 1 recs

Thanks for your comment Blair. I’ve also been stunned and saddened by the overall silence among print media. Brian Wilde is one hell of a guy and he calls it like it is without bias, it takes balls.

The response has already been greater than I imagined it would be and I’m glad that anything I could say could be helpful in any way.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 15, 2011 12:08 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Hickey Describing Fleury as an "Enabler" of Child Sex Abuse

Appreciate the chance to read all comments. Found Andrew Berkshire’s piece quite edifying. Its clear that Hickey didn’t do his research……or he’s lying. Mere words can not express the outrage I feel about Hickey’ s label of Fleury as an “enabler”(of child sex abuse). However, another victim of abuse, Ross Read, eloquently did …………………..http://thehockeywriters.com/montreal-columnist-slams-theo-fleury/………Hickey and the Gazette editors should be ashamed. But , I’m surprised that so many main stream journalists have not commented. Is it an insular “wall of silence” that’s part of their unwritten code…..like at Penn State?

by brad008 on Dec 15, 2011 5:50 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

phickey@montrealgazette.com

There is his email address.

I would strongly suggest one and all send this article with comments to Hickey letting him know how you feel. He is getting shredded at the Gazette right now, and he richly deserves it.

Let him know how you feel.

Loathing the Habs with every fibre of my being since 1963.

by Pyramid Power on Dec 15, 2011 6:48 PM EST up reply actions

Great job and thanks to those sharing their experiences, opinions, and insights

I found his articles and some of the comments on them appalling, and his closing about going on OTR even more enraging. There’s not much else I can say that hasn’t already been said, much more articulately, here, but really this post has been amazing.

"Well now you're just talking like Foghorn Leghorn!"

by justforkicks on Dec 15, 2011 7:22 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

Because this seems to be the issue everyone is dancing around and not addressing directly

(Andrew, I’m posting this here because I honestly don’t know where else to post this. I leave it up to you whether you think it belongs or not—and I totally understand if you decide it does not.)

Hickey’s gross accusation ignores entirely the grooming that Graham James put his adolescent victims through. Fleury compared it to the mental torture used to break prisoners of war. Before Hickey scoffs that comparison away, he should act like a journalist and investigate just how predators like James create victims pliable enough for their deviant desires. The experts call it "grooming," because that’s a safer, less threatening term for a squeamish public. A better term would be “breaking,” because it is a deliberately destructive process that strips away the child’s natural boundaries, destroys their self esteem, and then twists their thinking, all in order to bring them to a point of compliance with a predator’s wishes. Every future interaction an abuse victim has with the predator that put them through this training has to be evaluated in the light of both the abuse itself and this intensive, destructive process. EVERY interaction, whether the person has escaped the physical situation or not and no matter their age. Hickey cannot point at one incident and say, "He should have known better. He was an adult." He cannot cherry pick his targets according to his personal animosities.

(And this doesn’t even take into account the standing James had within the hockey community at that time—which puts a whole ’nother layer of complexity to the issue.)

Why am I qualified to comment upon this and Hickey is not? Because Hickey is not a survivor. Because this is my history: Intergenerational abuse, with one generation making the next available to the same predators that abused them and creating new predators and victims. I do not blame those who were abused before me for what happened to me; who do I blame? The abuser. The ones who chose to carry on the cycle of abuse. The one or two adults that I did try to tell who didn’t listen—but even then, there wasn’t the awareness we have now; the tools and resources to deal with this weren’t even on the radar thirty and forty years ago.

I keep seeing it thrown out that if you had a child on the Hitmen when James was coaching, that would change how you felt about this situation. It shouldn’t. Because James is the bad guy here, NOT Fleury. You don’t ask the kid with the broken leg why they didn’t get up and save the little old lady from the onrushing car; you don’t blame the wounded soldier for not saving the rest of their unit from being killed in the field. The psychological and soul injuries that incapacitated Fleury in the Hitmen deal were just as real as any physical injuries, and it is only in ignorance that anyone would ask for more from him. If Hickey wants to tar Fleury with this, he tars ALL abuse victims who did not speak out at a time and place of Hickey’s choosing. He makes us all responsible for our abuse. That even more than ignorance is his error, and his sin.

"I read a lot, but I'm quite illiterate."
~~J.D. Salinger

by klostes on Dec 15, 2011 7:34 PM EST reply actions 4 recs

Of course this belongs here, klostes. Thank you.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 15, 2011 7:41 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Well said. More insight is good and just emphasizes how ignorant Hickey is.

by Chris Boyle on Dec 15, 2011 10:47 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions 1 recs

I will forever spurn any Habs!

… but I had to pop over from Orange & Black land to put a rec on this post. Read it at work and was floored by the quality. No offense to blogs, I get some of my best news from SBnation, but it is so many shades of sad that bloggers, because they don’t necessarily need to do the “FIRST! EXCLUSIVE! NEWS NOW!” pace of mainstream media produce higher quality material more consistently than their “proper” peers.

by VorAbaddon on Dec 16, 2011 7:44 PM EST reply actions

I also find it very sad to be honest. I also find that mainstream sources continually fail to take advantage of the internet. I could never write this article for a newspaper because it’s 5 pages long in a word processor. But reporters don’t have newspaper limitations on internet columns. Papers are necessarily shallow reporting, but for a website that charges to view it’s content like the Gazette, they need to bring out better content.

Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire

by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 16, 2011 11:18 PM EST up reply actions