30
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Nov 9, 2023 11:00:14 GMT -6
sorry about hogging the boards here. I am laid up in bed with covid and have nothing to do but think. Brutal. get better! |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Jan 10, 2024 20:04:03 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by galaxytrash on Apr 9, 2024 11:11:19 GMT -6
JQ's interview starts at 1 hour 16 minutes and 30 seconds in.
i'm putting it here because the majority of the interview concerns the beach scandal.
i did debate with myself whether to post this or not but i think it's important to hear Q's side of the story.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldTimeHawky on Apr 23, 2024 1:28:30 GMT -6
JQ's interview starts at 1 hour 16 minutes and 30 seconds in. i'm putting it here because the majority of the interview concerns the beach scandal. i did debate with myself whether to post this or not but i think it's important to hear Q's side of the story. It's BS it's been 3yrs and Q still isn't coaching. And he can take responsibility all he wants but it was on John for not doing something, especially when he told everyone in that meeting that he would handle it and for them to focus on winning a cup. I've said this many times and I'll say it again, Beach was a troubled kid with serious mental issues and he shouldn't have been drinking and doing drugs with Aldrich and having 3ways with Brad and a prostitute, more than once. Yes Aldrich took advantage of him but ultimately it's on Beach for putting himself in that situation. |
|
|
|
Post by Tater on Apr 23, 2024 1:57:20 GMT -6
It's BS it's been 3yrs and Q still isn't coaching. And he can take responsibility all he wants but it was on John for not doing something, especially when he told everyone in that meeting that he would handle it and for them to focus on winning a cup. I've said this many times and I'll say it again, Beach was a troubled kid with serious mental issues and he shouldn't have been drinking and doing drugs with Aldrich and having 3ways with Brad and a prostitute, more than once. Yes Aldrich took advantage of him but ultimately it's on Beach for putting himself in that situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Apr 23, 2024 8:25:21 GMT -6
JQ's interview starts at 1 hour 16 minutes and 30 seconds in. i'm putting it here because the majority of the interview concerns the beach scandal. i did debate with myself whether to post this or not but i think it's important to hear Q's side of the story. It's BS it's been 3yrs and Q still isn't coaching. And he can take responsibility all he wants but it was on John for not doing something, especially when he told everyone in that meeting that he would handle it and for them to focus on winning a cup. I've said this many times and I'll say it again, Beach was a troubled kid with serious mental issues and he shouldn't have been drinking and doing drugs with Aldrich and having 3ways with Brad and a prostitute, more than once. Yes Aldrich took advantage of him but ultimately it's on Beach for putting himself in that situation. So your saying that rape is okay as long as the victim is troubled, has mental issues, drinks and does drugs, has paid for sex on the past, and has given prior consent? Because last I checked with an expert in the field, legally none of those disqualify anyone from withdrawing consent and making rape okay, nor is "putting ones self in a situation where they might be raped". It doesn't matter if your a hockey player or a college coed going to a frat party, anyone has the right to withdraw consent at any time and once consent is withdrawn, it is rape and is a crime irrespective of past behavior, gender, mental faculty, inebriation state, et al. |
|
|
|
Post by hawkfaninpdx on Apr 23, 2024 10:57:04 GMT -6
It's BS it's been 3yrs and Q still isn't coaching. And he can take responsibility all he wants but it was on John for not doing something, especially when he told everyone in that meeting that he would handle it and for them to focus on winning a cup. I've said this many times and I'll say it again, Beach was a troubled kid with serious mental issues and he shouldn't have been drinking and doing drugs with Aldrich and having 3ways with Brad and a prostitute, more than once. Yes Aldrich took advantage of him but ultimately it's on Beach for putting himself in that situation. So your saying that rape is okay as long as the victim is troubled, has mental issues, drinks and does drugs, has paid for sex on the past, and has given prior consent? Because last I checked with an expert in the field, legally none of those disqualify anyone from withdrawing consent and making rape okay, nor is "putting ones self in a situation where they might be raped". It doesn't matter if your a hockey player or a college coed going to a frat party, anyone has the right to withdraw consent at any time and once consent is withdrawn, it is rape and is a crime irrespective of past behavior, gender, mental faculty, inebriation state, et al. Beach's troubled behavior is precisely why Aldrich picked him. Predators know how to select their victims. Aldrich probably knew that Beach thought that his chances of playing in the NHL were slipping away and that he was hanging by a thread, so he preyed on his desperation and his troubled behavior. Was it mostly on Q to intervene? No, but his role in this scandal was not insignificant. With that said, I do hope that Q will coach again. |
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Apr 23, 2024 11:24:28 GMT -6
So your saying that rape is okay as long as the victim is troubled, has mental issues, drinks and does drugs, has paid for sex on the past, and has given prior consent? Because last I checked with an expert in the field, legally none of those disqualify anyone from withdrawing consent and making rape okay, nor is "putting ones self in a situation where they might be raped". It doesn't matter if your a hockey player or a college coed going to a frat party, anyone has the right to withdraw consent at any time and once consent is withdrawn, it is rape and is a crime irrespective of past behavior, gender, mental faculty, inebriation state, et al. Beach's troubled behavior is precisely why Aldrich picked him. Predators know how to select their victims. Aldrich probably knew that Beach thought that his chances of playing in the NHL were slipping away and that he was hanging by a thread, so he preyed on his desperation and his troubled behavior. Was it mostly on Q to intervene? No, but his role in this scandal was not insignificant. With that said, I do hope that Q will coach again. Exactly. Rapists and sexual predators prey on victims who will not likely report and gaslight them into thinking that it's their fault and that no one will believe them. To say it was Beach's fault due to his prior behavior is exactly like saying, "She was asking for it." Which is never the case and is tone-deaf as ever. Even back in the 2010's people in a position to do something should, and that's why Q and Bowman were let go. They could have dealt with the situation, even in spite of McD saying "he'd handle it". And yes, If noticed something illegal and my boss told me they'd handle it, I wouldn't just let it go. That being said I think it might just take a contrite public apology and accepting that he should have acted for Q to be a coach again. Probably Bowman as well |
|
|
|
Post by bigbarn27 on Apr 23, 2024 21:58:06 GMT -6
Beach's troubled behavior is precisely why Aldrich picked him. Predators know how to select their victims. Aldrich probably knew that Beach thought that his chances of playing in the NHL were slipping away and that he was hanging by a thread, so he preyed on his desperation and his troubled behavior. Was it mostly on Q to intervene? No, but his role in this scandal was not insignificant. With that said, I do hope that Q will coach again. Exactly. Rapists and sexual predators prey on victims who will not likely report and gaslight them into thinking that it's their fault and that no one will believe them. To say it was Beach's fault due to his prior behavior is exactly like saying, "She was asking for it." Which is never the case and is tone-deaf as ever. Even back in the 2010's people in a position to do something should, and that's why Q and Bowman were let go. They could have dealt with the situation, even in spite of McD saying "he'd handle it". And yes, If noticed something illegal and my boss told me they'd handle it, I wouldn't just let it go. That being said I think it might just take a contrite public apology and accepting that he should have acted for Q to be a coach again. Probably Bowman as well Teaching moment for lots of people. Kyle told his parents over the summer they all decided doing nothing was the best option. Its hard to do the right thing in the moment. Its sad to see how much the adults fail most are trying to do there best. And the scumbag after all his shit only spends 9 months in jail. |
|
|
|
Post by OldTimeHawky on Apr 24, 2024 7:04:27 GMT -6
It's BS it's been 3yrs and Q still isn't coaching. And he can take responsibility all he wants but it was on John for not doing something, especially when he told everyone in that meeting that he would handle it and for them to focus on winning a cup. I've said this many times and I'll say it again, Beach was a troubled kid with serious mental issues and he shouldn't have been drinking and doing drugs with Aldrich and having 3ways with Brad and a prostitute, more than once. Yes Aldrich took advantage of him but ultimately it's on Beach for putting himself in that situation. So your saying that rape is okay as long as the victim is troubled, has mental issues, drinks and does drugs, has paid for sex on the past, and has given prior consent? Because last I checked with an expert in the field, legally none of those disqualify anyone from withdrawing consent and making rape okay, nor is "putting ones self in a situation where they might be raped". It doesn't matter if your a hockey player or a college coed going to a frat party, anyone has the right to withdraw consent at any time and once consent is withdrawn, it is rape and is a crime irrespective of past behavior, gender, mental faculty, inebriation state, et al. By no means am I saying rape is ok, no matter what. I said Aldrich took advantage of him. But Beach was a bully in juniors and his demons followed him to Chicago and a predator preyed upon him, definitely doesn't make it right, but Adam wasn't an angel. As soon as it was brought to the attention of the organization Aldrich should've been let go but McD was the boss and completely handled it the wrong way. But the silver lining is that it got McD and Bowman away from Chicago. |
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Apr 24, 2024 8:17:16 GMT -6
So your saying that rape is okay as long as the victim is troubled, has mental issues, drinks and does drugs, has paid for sex on the past, and has given prior consent? Because last I checked with an expert in the field, legally none of those disqualify anyone from withdrawing consent and making rape okay, nor is "putting ones self in a situation where they might be raped". It doesn't matter if your a hockey player or a college coed going to a frat party, anyone has the right to withdraw consent at any time and once consent is withdrawn, it is rape and is a crime irrespective of past behavior, gender, mental faculty, inebriation state, et al. By no means am I saying rape is ok, no matter what. I said Aldrich took advantage of him. But Beach was a bully in juniors and his demons followed him to Chicago and a predator preyed upon him, definitely doesn't make it right, but Adam wasn't an angel. As soon as it was brought to the attention of the organization Aldrich should've been let go but McD was the boss and completely handled it the wrong way. But the silver lining is that it got McD and Bowman away from Chicago. Kyle beach might have not been an angel, but his (or anyone's) prior actions are in no way, shape or form a mitigating factor in the crime of rape. To my knowledge, in most places within the US (Definitely in my city, county, and state), if a woman is raped, her past sexual activities, her outfit at the time, etc. are not considered germane to the crime; she always has the right to not consent or withdraw consent at any time no exceptions. In my area, that same standard is held for men; it doesn't matter what his past activities, sexual or otherwise, were, he still has the right to not give consent or withdraw consent. I'm like 98% sure that the law is the same or very similar in Chicago or where the rape took place, as well as the laws being on the books *when* the rape took place. Beyond that, yes, McD 100% failed to handle it. Beyond Aldrich and Gary, he is the most culpable. But like I said, I think Q & Bowman were in a position to do something (irrespective of whether or not their boss says, 'I'll handle it'), and didn't--which is why they were given the chance to resign. But I think that also means once all this quiets down it might just mean they make a formal, public apology and contrition and the league might let them back in. Gary and McD should be barred for life--as well as Aldrich, but that should be a given. |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Apr 24, 2024 10:00:03 GMT -6
I’m sticking up both the GM and Coach here. Yes the last GM. While I totally disagreed with his ideas. But I cannot bury him for this.
If the 2 were in a meeting with all management and coaches. And the top dog says he was going to do something and take care of it. They did their part. They attended a meeting, there was a company resolution. The employee ended up being removed a few weeks later. Did the coach or GM know anything about an investigation or review of the conduct of that said employee? Or employees?
To expect a bunch of people to go over their bosses head is an unreasonable expectation. Just because McCub fucked off and there was no one to hang. Doesn’t mean they have to hang those guys. Did they know? Yes. Was the accused employee gone? Yes. So they should have stopped working towards a Stanley Cup, and do a job they were tasked to do? It sucks. If they made all involved resign, and give them a 2 year suspension. I think that’s massive punishment. Q made 6 million a year. He gave up 18 million bucks now. I think that’s punishment enough for his role in this, if there ever really was one.
So to end this. If McCub was still on board. Do the others face what they face? I think they’d hand McCub and move on!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by mvr on Apr 24, 2024 11:23:08 GMT -6
I understand there are harassment policies and procedures which management should have been followed and did not here. This clearly is the big issue. But the truth is that authorities bend rules all the time depending on the situation.
We all believe Beach's story now because we have hindsight information about the coach's subsequent behavior with young players in his care. We also now live in a post "Me Too" world. There is a right and a wrong.
At the time, however, the situation was quite different. Almost certainly, nobody on staff believed Beach's story. Why would they? He was a troubled kid with a history of bullying who was 6"3" and 200 plus pounds. Everyone knew the coach. They perceived him as a harmless "out" homosexual trying to navigate his career in a masculine cultural environment. Nobody recognized the power imbalance because the coach was physically smaller and a minor figure on the staff with no real authority.
I am quite confident management considered themselves quite progressive for employing Aldrich. It pained them to have to let him go. My guess is that many felt Aldrich got a raw deal. They felt Beach was lying. They suspected he was an intolerant homophobic likely with substance-abuse problems. Their motivation for covering up the incident was largely paternalistic: to protect their investment in the player and preserve his reputation.
Was their handling of the situation wrong? Yes. Is it understandable? I think so.
We are judging people for breaching procedures. But everyone does it from time to time.
|
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Apr 25, 2024 11:37:38 GMT -6
I’m sticking up both the GM and Coach here. Yes the last GM. While I totally disagreed with his ideas. But I cannot bury him for this. If the 2 were in a meeting with all management and coaches. And the top dog says he was going to do something and take care of it. They did their part. They attended a meeting, there was a company resolution. The employee ended up being removed a few weeks later. Did the coach or GM know anything about an investigation or review of the conduct of that said employee? Or employees? To expect a bunch of people to go over their bosses head is an unreasonable expectation. Just because McCub fucked off and there was no one to hang. Doesn’t mean they have to hang those guys. Did they know? Yes. Was the accused employee gone? Yes. So they should have stopped working towards a Stanley Cup, and do a job they were tasked to do? It sucks. If they made all involved resign, and give them a 2 year suspension. I think that’s massive punishment. Q made 6 million a year. He gave up 18 million bucks now. I think that’s punishment enough for his role in this, if there ever really was one. So to end this. If McCub was still on board. Do the others face what they face? I think they’d hand McCub and move on!!! It took them a few weeks to keep a predator away from their prey. That's the salient part. Even back then it would have been standard practice for most organizations for anyone with the authority to do so (i.e. Stan, Q, etc.) to keep the alleged abuser away from the alleged abused. The 'hawks didn't. Q, Stan, etc. had the authority to make sure that within any Hockey/Blackhawks function that Aldrich and Beach would be kept separate. So, instead of sending Aldrich away on paid administrative leave or the like while an investigation takes place for the safety of Beach, they opted not to because, I think Q said this in the deposition, that 'they didn't want the distraction'--even if their boss said, 'they'd handle it'. I think if McCub was on board nothing else would have really changed; they all would have been gone for the same reason: they all had the authority to do something, but didn't. I also think that, like now, McCub and Gary would have been permabanned (and If Gary was still practicing all of his licensure and credentials should be stripped), but Stan, Q, and the like would/will probably be let back in when this all blows over and they give a contrite apology saying they should have acted but didn't. |
|
|
|
Post by T-man2010 on Apr 25, 2024 11:53:22 GMT -6
I’m sticking up both the GM and Coach here. Yes the last GM. While I totally disagreed with his ideas. But I cannot bury him for this. If the 2 were in a meeting with all management and coaches. And the top dog says he was going to do something and take care of it. They did their part. They attended a meeting, there was a company resolution. The employee ended up being removed a few weeks later. Did the coach or GM know anything about an investigation or review of the conduct of that said employee? Or employees? To expect a bunch of people to go over their bosses head is an unreasonable expectation. Just because McCub fucked off and there was no one to hang. Doesn’t mean they have to hang those guys. Did they know? Yes. Was the accused employee gone? Yes. So they should have stopped working towards a Stanley Cup, and do a job they were tasked to do? It sucks. If they made all involved resign, and give them a 2 year suspension. I think that’s massive punishment. Q made 6 million a year. He gave up 18 million bucks now. I think that’s punishment enough for his role in this, if there ever really was one. So to end this. If McCub was still on board. Do the others face what they face? I think they’d hand McCub and move on!!! It took them a few weeks to keep a predator away from their prey. That's the salient part. Even back then it would have been standard practice for most organizations for anyone with the authority to do so (i.e. Stan, Q, etc.) to keep the alleged abuser away from the alleged abused. The 'hawks didn't. Q, Stan, etc. had the authority to make sure that within any Hockey/Blackhawks function that Aldrich and Beach would be kept separate. So, instead of sending Aldrich away on paid administrative leave or the like while an investigation takes place for the safety of Beach, they opted not to because, I think Q said this in the deposition, that 'they didn't want the distraction'--even if their boss said, 'they'd handle it'. I think if McCub was on board nothing else would have really changed; they all would have been gone for the same reason: they all had the authority to do something, but didn't. I also think that, like now, McCub and Gary would have been permabanned (and If Gary was still practicing all of his licensure and credentials should be stripped), but Stan, Q, and the like would/will probably be let back in when this all blows over and they give a contrite apology saying they should have acted but didn't. Everyone says the Hawks should have done something. But what? They couldn't go to the police, they already said they would have done nothing. Beach had to go to the police and file a report. Who was the guy that went with Beach to the front office, why didn't he take him? Or his parents? Friends? |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Apr 25, 2024 12:01:28 GMT -6
I’m sticking up both the GM and Coach here. Yes the last GM. While I totally disagreed with his ideas. But I cannot bury him for this. If the 2 were in a meeting with all management and coaches. And the top dog says he was going to do something and take care of it. They did their part. They attended a meeting, there was a company resolution. The employee ended up being removed a few weeks later. Did the coach or GM know anything about an investigation or review of the conduct of that said employee? Or employees? To expect a bunch of people to go over their bosses head is an unreasonable expectation. Just because McCub fucked off and there was no one to hang. Doesn’t mean they have to hang those guys. Did they know? Yes. Was the accused employee gone? Yes. So they should have stopped working towards a Stanley Cup, and do a job they were tasked to do? It sucks. If they made all involved resign, and give them a 2 year suspension. I think that’s massive punishment. Q made 6 million a year. He gave up 18 million bucks now. I think that’s punishment enough for his role in this, if there ever really was one. So to end this. If McCub was still on board. Do the others face what they face? I think they’d hand McCub and move on!!! It took them a few weeks to keep a predator away from their prey. That's the salient part. Even back then it would have been standard practice for most organizations for anyone with the authority to do so (i.e. Stan, Q, etc.) to keep the alleged abuser away from the alleged abused. The 'hawks didn't. Q, Stan, etc. had the authority to make sure that within any Hockey/Blackhawks function that Aldrich and Beach would be kept separate. So, instead of sending Aldrich away on paid administrative leave or the like while an investigation takes place for the safety of Beach, they opted not to because, I think Q said this in the deposition, that 'they didn't want the distraction'--even if their boss said, 'they'd handle it'. I think if McCub was on board nothing else would have really changed; they all would have been gone for the same reason: they all had the authority to do something, but didn't. I also think that, like now, McCub and Gary would have been permabanned (and If Gary was still practicing all of his licensure and credentials should be stripped), but Stan, Q, and the like would/will probably be let back in when this all blows over and they give a contrite apology saying they should have acted but didn't. What could they have done? They had absolutely no authority to do anything. Like MVR said. Imagine firing someone who was gay in the start of a massive lgbt movement? I don’t really understand what people were expecting them to do? Sure in hind sight you can say they should have gone above their bosses head and went to the media or the police etc, and not give a shit about the cup or the other players that were actually playing. Both would have been fired and both probably never work again in the nhl. They were damned no matter what. Basically guilty by association. And we have to just stop thinking Beach was this innocent 15/16!year old boy. He was a young man with a boat load of problems. Most believe that Beach was lured in by this guy and totally was took advantage of. Why the hell did he go out partying with him on many occasions? I don’t want to see that happen to anyone. But he seemed to welcome the attention from that fucker. Got hookers etc. It’s the ole “Birds of a feather, flock together”. It seems to me like everyone but the people directly involved are getting the worst of it. There’s nothing Q or the last GM could have done to stop the incident. It was a conscious decision by Mr Beach to go hang with him. And he did so on multiple occasions. Then when in the right frame of mind, he realizes he has to say something. And he should have. But what GM could they have done with destroying themselves? Can blame everyone for self preservation!!! |
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Apr 25, 2024 12:42:32 GMT -6
It took them a few weeks to keep a predator away from their prey. That's the salient part. Even back then it would have been standard practice for most organizations for anyone with the authority to do so (i.e. Stan, Q, etc.) to keep the alleged abuser away from the alleged abused. The 'hawks didn't. Q, Stan, etc. had the authority to make sure that within any Hockey/Blackhawks function that Aldrich and Beach would be kept separate. So, instead of sending Aldrich away on paid administrative leave or the like while an investigation takes place for the safety of Beach, they opted not to because, I think Q said this in the deposition, that 'they didn't want the distraction'--even if their boss said, 'they'd handle it'. I think if McCub was on board nothing else would have really changed; they all would have been gone for the same reason: they all had the authority to do something, but didn't. I also think that, like now, McCub and Gary would have been permabanned (and If Gary was still practicing all of his licensure and credentials should be stripped), but Stan, Q, and the like would/will probably be let back in when this all blows over and they give a contrite apology saying they should have acted but didn't. Everyone says the Hawks should have done something. But what? They couldn't go to the police, they already said they would have done nothing. Beach had to go to the police and file a report. Who was the guy that went with Beach to the front office, why didn't he take him? Or his parents? Friends? To answer this and BigT: Q, Stan, McD, *anyone* with authority over Aldrich could have and should have kept them separated until a proper investigation could have been done. As aforementioned: Paid administrative leave for Aldrich. Gary should not have told Beach that the assault was his fault. Gary was likely a mandatory reporter; if true he was professionally obligated to go to the police irrespective of Beach's wishes. If the police would have done nothing then the 'hawks and their brass would have done their due diligence, and the culpability transfers to the police. I believe I mentioned the psychology of the matter of those who aren't mandatory reporters earlier in this thread, but in a nutshell it's a fine line because they should encourage the victim to go to the police, but if they don't want to lose trust with the victim and report themselves or force the victim to report. Gary, if he is/was a Mandatory reporter, would be obligated to report and would have been obligated to tell Beach as such. As for Beach and his age and whatnot. For starters he was likely told from Day 1 that he should always listen to his coaches and do everything that they say--most likely from his parents, and this behavior reinforced through his childhood and adolescence. Aldrich, being a predator, would have used that to his advantage. In fact, the report directly said he told *all* of the black aces that he had Q's ear and could get them on the team. He used typical abuser behavior: gained trust, tied to be buddy-buddy and be their friend and gain their complete trust *before* he did any assault. In Beach he saw a troubled young adult with issues who people would have a hard time believing. It is actually no different than rapists who look for "promiscuous" women because they feel it's easier to manipulate and gaslight them into believe that no one will believe them if they accuse them of rape, and the fact that most laypeople won't believe them because "they were asking for it." Aldrich found a victim in Beach: A young adult with issues who likes to party, who people wouldn't believe because of his behavior and who he could groom. Plus his size would make most laypeople question how a smaller man like Aldrich could victimize a larger man like Beach: Again, Position of Authority--this concept was known back then--maybe not to laypeople but to those in the field. Ergo, it doesn't matter if Beach was 15 or 25; his past legally had no standing with the actions that happened--bully or not. Mental issues or not. Substance abuse or not. Past sleeping with prostitutes or not. Man or Woman doesn't matter. It's why even back ~2010 that a woman rape victim is not allowed to be questioned about her sexual history or what she was wearing. Past actions do not negate the ability to consent. Source: Wife. 10+years as a forensic interviewer. She's forgotten more on the topic than everyone here, including myself, knows. |
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Apr 25, 2024 12:56:53 GMT -6
I understand there are harassment policies and procedures which management should have been followed and did not here. This clearly is the big issue. But the truth is that authorities bend rules all the time depending on the situation. We all believe Beach's story now because we have hindsight information about the coach's subsequent behavior with young players in his care. We also now live in a post "Me Too" world. There is a right and a wrong. At the time, however, the situation was quite different. Almost certainly, nobody on staff believed Beach's story. Why would they? He was a troubled kid with a history of bullying who was 6"3" and 200 plus pounds. Everyone knew the coach. They perceived him as a harmless "out" homosexual trying to navigate his career in a masculine cultural environment. Nobody recognized the power imbalance because the coach was physically smaller and a minor figure on the staff with no real authority. I am quite confident management considered themselves quite progressive for employing Aldrich. It pained them to have to let him go. My guess is that many felt Aldrich got a raw deal. They felt Beach was lying. They suspected he was an intolerant homophobic likely with substance-abuse problems. Their motivation for covering up the incident was largely paternalistic: to protect their investment in the player and preserve his reputation. Was their handling of the situation wrong? Yes. Is it understandable? I think so. We are judging people for breaching procedures. But everyone does it from time to time. Actually, anyone in the field at the time would have recognized the power imbalance; it is one of the reasons I think Gary is the scum of the earth. He should have had the education to recognize the power imbalance, recognize the predator behavior in Aldrich, was in all likelihood a mandatory reporter so should have reported this to the authorities, and should have never, ever, told a victim of abuse, alleged or not, that it 'was their fault'. Plus, having the education and being in the field he should have been able to weigh in with the brass and give a proper assessment--or at least told them to keep Aldrich and Beach separate until a proper investigation could happen. Even back then, if no one believed a victim's story when they did have a sexual assault/rape outcry and did nothing about it, they still would be held culpable for not doing anything if it comes to light that something happened. As aforementioned a lot of organizations' standard practice should have been to keep the alleged abuser/victim separate within the powers that they the organization has--because if it did come to light that something happened the organization would be in a legally vulnerable position. |
|
|
|
Post by mvr on Apr 25, 2024 15:45:08 GMT -6
Wasn't Aldrich an assistant video coach? This is not a person with any real power (though clearly - and sadly - Beach did not perceive the situation that way).
The organization would have thought of Aldrich as a highly disposable piece. On the other hand, Beach was a first round pick. The team invested huge money and resources in his development. Coaches often get fired because they do not get along with players. If there was a power imbalance, likely the player had more than the coach (at least in the eyes of Bowman, Quenneville etc.) Let's remember, a third line forward makes more money than most NHL coaches and general managers. An assistant video coach makes less money than an AHL prospect.
There is no question here that the Hawks staff (especially McD. and the HR dept.) was negligent.
To understand the motivations of the people involved, we need to get into their heads. Quenneville and Bowman both have said little publicly (which is undoubtedly their best move legally). I suspect neither recognized Aldrich's "predator behavior" because they were blinded by homophobia. They saw Beach as a willing participant who became embarrassed after sobering up.
My guess is that many if not most professional sports organizations have at one time or another covered up sex-related scandals among players (affairs, homosexual dalliances, complaints of rough sex etc). Studies show that up to 10% of the overall population have engaged in homosexual activity at one time or another. Yet not a single NHL player in the game's history has ever come out in public.
|
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Apr 25, 2024 21:09:34 GMT -6
Everyone says the Hawks should have done something. But what? They couldn't go to the police, they already said they would have done nothing. Beach had to go to the police and file a report. Who was the guy that went with Beach to the front office, why didn't he take him? Or his parents? Friends? To answer this and BigT: Q, Stan, McD, *anyone* with authority over Aldrich could have and should have kept them separated until a proper investigation could have been done. As aforementioned: Paid administrative leave for Aldrich. Gary should not have told Beach that the assault was his fault. Gary was likely a mandatory reporter; if true he was professionally obligated to go to the police irrespective of Beach's wishes. If the police would have done nothing then the 'hawks and their brass would have done their due diligence, and the culpability transfers to the police. I believe I mentioned the psychology of the matter of those who aren't mandatory reporters earlier in this thread, but in a nutshell it's a fine line because they should encourage the victim to go to the police, but if they don't want to lose trust with the victim and report themselves or force the victim to report. Gary, if he is/was a Mandatory reporter, would be obligated to report and would have been obligated to tell Beach as such. As for Beach and his age and whatnot. For starters he was likely told from Day 1 that he should always listen to his coaches and do everything that they say--most likely from his parents, and this behavior reinforced through his childhood and adolescence. Aldrich, being a predator, would have used that to his advantage. In fact, the report directly said he told *all* of the black aces that he had Q's ear and could get them on the team. He used typical abuser behavior: gained trust, tied to be buddy-buddy and be their friend and gain their complete trust *before* he did any assault. In Beach he saw a troubled young adult with issues who people would have a hard time believing. It is actually no different than rapists who look for "promiscuous" women because they feel it's easier to manipulate and gaslight them into believe that no one will believe them if they accuse them of rape, and the fact that most laypeople won't believe them because "they were asking for it." Aldrich found a victim in Beach: A young adult with issues who likes to party, who people wouldn't believe because of his behavior and who he could groom. Plus his size would make most laypeople question how a smaller man like Aldrich could victimize a larger man like Beach: Again, Position of Authority--this concept was known back then--maybe not to laypeople but to those in the field. Ergo, it doesn't matter if Beach was 15 or 25; his past legally had no standing with the actions that happened--bully or not. Mental issues or not. Substance abuse or not. Past sleeping with prostitutes or not. Man or Woman doesn't matter. It's why even back ~2010 that a woman rape victim is not allowed to be questioned about her sexual history or what she was wearing. Past actions do not negate the ability to consent. Source: Wife. 10+years as a forensic interviewer. She's forgotten more on the topic than everyone here, including myself, knows. I’m not arguing that you’re wrong. I think what I’m saying is just because someone knew, doesn’t mean they should pay for this. Q more than likely had no say over firing the assistant video coach. So, they were in a meeting and briefed on this matter as far as I know. Stan may have known more and sooner in his role as GM. And I’m sure McD being the guy he is told them in the harshest way to shut up about this and leave it with him. He wanted the Cup final to go by without a hitch. He got what he wanted. It was him and the HR dept. They failed him. I’m sure there was a bathroom attendant that overheard this too. Should that person be to blame? I don’t know. I’m not shaming the victim. But I do find it hard to find him a victim in this. If he went out drinking with him once and this happened, then I’d fully agree. I fully understand everything you’ve put up there. I’m not saying anything against it. This is just my outlook on it. So I hope you don’t take this as a shaming of a victim. I do however have to question it. If that makes sense to you!!! |
|
|
|
Post by galaxytrash on Apr 25, 2024 22:13:13 GMT -6
To answer this and BigT : Q, Stan, McD, *anyone* with authority over Aldrich could have and should have kept them separated until a proper investigation could have been done. As aforementioned: Paid administrative leave for Aldrich. Gary should not have told Beach that the assault was his fault. Gary was likely a mandatory reporter; if true he was professionally obligated to go to the police irrespective of Beach's wishes. If the police would have done nothing then the 'hawks and their brass would have done their due diligence, and the culpability transfers to the police. I believe I mentioned the psychology of the matter of those who aren't mandatory reporters earlier in this thread, but in a nutshell it's a fine line because they should encourage the victim to go to the police, but if they don't want to lose trust with the victim and report themselves or force the victim to report. Gary, if he is/was a Mandatory reporter, would be obligated to report and would have been obligated to tell Beach as such. As for Beach and his age and whatnot. For starters he was likely told from Day 1 that he should always listen to his coaches and do everything that they say--most likely from his parents, and this behavior reinforced through his childhood and adolescence. Aldrich, being a predator, would have used that to his advantage. In fact, the report directly said he told *all* of the black aces that he had Q's ear and could get them on the team. He used typical abuser behavior: gained trust, tied to be buddy-buddy and be their friend and gain their complete trust *before* he did any assault. In Beach he saw a troubled young adult with issues who people would have a hard time believing. It is actually no different than rapists who look for "promiscuous" women because they feel it's easier to manipulate and gaslight them into believe that no one will believe them if they accuse them of rape, and the fact that most laypeople won't believe them because "they were asking for it." Aldrich found a victim in Beach: A young adult with issues who likes to party, who people wouldn't believe because of his behavior and who he could groom. Plus his size would make most laypeople question how a smaller man like Aldrich could victimize a larger man like Beach: Again, Position of Authority--this concept was known back then--maybe not to laypeople but to those in the field. Ergo, it doesn't matter if Beach was 15 or 25; his past legally had no standing with the actions that happened--bully or not. Mental issues or not. Substance abuse or not. Past sleeping with prostitutes or not. Man or Woman doesn't matter. It's why even back ~2010 that a woman rape victim is not allowed to be questioned about her sexual history or what she was wearing. Past actions do not negate the ability to consent. Source: Wife. 10+years as a forensic interviewer. She's forgotten more on the topic than everyone here, including myself, knows. I’m not arguing that you’re wrong. I think what I’m saying is just because someone knew, doesn’t mean they should pay for this. Q more than likely had no say over firing the assistant video coach. So, they were in a meeting and briefed on this matter as far as I know. Stan may have known more and sooner in his role as GM. And I’m sure McD being the guy he is told them in the harshest way to shut up about this and leave it with him. He wanted the Cup final to go by without a hitch. He got what he wanted. It was him and the HR dept. They failed him. I’m sure there was a bathroom attendant that overheard this too. Should that person be to blame? I don’t know. I’m not shaming the victim. But I do find it hard to find him a victim in this. If he went out drinking with him once and this happened, then I’d fully agree. I fully understand everything you’ve put up there. I’m not saying anything against it. This is just my outlook on it. So I hope you don’t take this as a shaming of a victim. I do however have to question it. If that makes sense to you!!! well....Q and stan were both paid millions meaning they were both in positions of high responsibility so comparing them to a bathroom attendant doesn't really cut it, even if you made the comment in jest to get a point across. and i'm not saying i'd have done anything different if i was in the Q's or stan's shoes because i'm just as flawed as anyone. the allure of that big shiny trophy could warp just about anyone's sense of responsibility. and about Q "more than likely having no say over firing the assistant video coach". really? i would say the head coach would have more say than anyone in matters like that. jmo. |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Apr 26, 2024 3:03:22 GMT -6
He would have to go through his general manager to fire someone from his staff. So even if Q said to get rid of him. Maybe Stan couldn’t due to his superior saying “let me handle it”. That’s the point. Both guys were probably shut out of the decision process. McD and the HR dept should be the ones accountable. But none of them are there to face the music. Actually, I’ll stick up for everyone in management not named McDonough. I’m sure Jay Blunk had nothing to do with any of it, and followed his superior, and got ousted for it.
I think many are believe that the others involved just didn’t give a shit and walked away from it. When the reality is they were not allowed to do an investigation, and remember, it was just an allegation at the time. There really wasn’t much they could do.
Like Lordy said. He should a been put on administrative leave, and conducted an investigation (quietly) and in the near future, call him out and hope the cops get him. That’s the HR dept and McD. I just don’t know what the people in management should have done? All I hear is everyone saying they should have “done something”. I think that’s just the easy way out.
What if someone in HR told McD to shit can him and he just said no. Should that person in HR have gone over his head and done it anyway? Lose their job, possibly their house? People are born and raised to follow the chain of command. Now we expect them to be insubordinate? I just think using the term “they should a done something” is too convenient here!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by galaxytrash on Apr 26, 2024 5:46:36 GMT -6
He would have to go through his general manager to fire someone from his staff. of course he would. |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Apr 26, 2024 6:16:51 GMT -6
He would have to go through his general manager to fire someone from his staff. of course he would. On a different note. When Tallon fired Savard. He wouldn’t take credit for it. He called it an organizational decision. And he said that 4-5 times. So it goes to show that the President wielded great power. And he was there at that moment too!!! |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Apr 26, 2024 9:15:10 GMT -6
Everyone says the Hawks should have done something. But what? They couldn't go to the police, they already said they would have done nothing. Beach had to go to the police and file a report. Who was the guy that went with Beach to the front office, why didn't he take him? Or his parents? Friends? To answer this and BigT : Q, Stan, McD, *anyone* with authority over Aldrich could have and should have kept them separated until a proper investigation could have been done. As aforementioned: Paid administrative leave for Aldrich. Gary should not have told Beach that the assault was his fault. Gary was likely a mandatory reporter; if true he was professionally obligated to go to the police irrespective of Beach's wishes. If the police would have done nothing then the 'hawks and their brass would have done their due diligence, and the culpability transfers to the police. I believe I mentioned the psychology of the matter of those who aren't mandatory reporters earlier in this thread, but in a nutshell it's a fine line because they should encourage the victim to go to the police, but if they don't want to lose trust with the victim and report themselves or force the victim to report. Gary, if he is/was a Mandatory reporter, would be obligated to report and would have been obligated to tell Beach as such. As for Beach and his age and whatnot. For starters he was likely told from Day 1 that he should always listen to his coaches and do everything that they say--most likely from his parents, and this behavior reinforced through his childhood and adolescence. Aldrich, being a predator, would have used that to his advantage. In fact, the report directly said he told *all* of the black aces that he had Q's ear and could get them on the team. He used typical abuser behavior: gained trust, tied to be buddy-buddy and be their friend and gain their complete trust *before* he did any assault. In Beach he saw a troubled young adult with issues who people would have a hard time believing. It is actually no different than rapists who look for "promiscuous" women because they feel it's easier to manipulate and gaslight them into believe that no one will believe them if they accuse them of rape, and the fact that most laypeople won't believe them because "they were asking for it." Aldrich found a victim in Beach: A young adult with issues who likes to party, who people wouldn't believe because of his behavior and who he could groom. Plus his size would make most laypeople question how a smaller man like Aldrich could victimize a larger man like Beach: Again, Position of Authority--this concept was known back then--maybe not to laypeople but to those in the field. Ergo, it doesn't matter if Beach was 15 or 25; his past legally had no standing with the actions that happened--bully or not. Mental issues or not. Substance abuse or not. Past sleeping with prostitutes or not. Man or Woman doesn't matter. It's why even back ~2010 that a woman rape victim is not allowed to be questioned about her sexual history or what she was wearing. Past actions do not negate the ability to consent. Source: Wife. 10+years as a forensic interviewer. She's forgotten more on the topic than everyone here, including myself, knows. Not that the bolded changes the dynamic but it does speak to the victim's believability at the time and more importantly.......it's inaccurate. Kyle Beach was a behavior and disciplinary nightmare for his coaches from an early age,I'm not sure he ever listened to a single one of em looking at his long history of disturbing behavior. How much respect for anyone or anything did he have when he reportedly started a fight with Aliu at Rockford's team dinner? That happened not long before the PO's started that year and it should have precluded him from being a 'Black ace' IMO but maybe the team figured being around the 'group' would help him mature. That belief in the young player was rewarded by him seeking out an AC that other young players avoided because they thought him to be 'creepy'. This doesn't change the dynamic either,but Kyle Beach didn't ignore his young teammate's warnings so he could receive extra video coaching from the AC,he went where he thought he could carry-on and break rules. To be fair,I'd also add the fact that no one in the Org knew what we know now about the predatory AC either.........hindsight will remain 20/20. |
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Apr 26, 2024 9:44:00 GMT -6
Wasn't Aldrich an assistant video coach? This is not a person with any real power (though clearly - and sadly - Beach did not perceive the situation that way). Predators may or may not have any real actual power, but they gaslight their victims into thinking they do. It's textbook. In fact: the Report on the beach incident clearly stated that Aldrich told all of the black aces that he had coach Q's ear. Did he? I don't know. But he obviously wanted his victims to think that he did--and it workedThe organization would have thought of Aldrich as a highly disposable piece. On the other hand, Beach was a first round pick. The team invested huge money and resources in his development. Coaches often get fired because they do not get along with players. If there was a power imbalance, likely the player had more than the coach (at least in the eyes of Bowman, Quenneville etc.) Let's remember, a third line forward makes more money than most NHL coaches and general managers. An assistant video coach makes less money than an AHL prospect. Probably not--like aforementioned Beach had a history which would make it unlikely for a layperson to believe him straight out. I think that is one reason Aldrich specifically targeted him; again, textbook predator behavior. A predator will typically not go for someone who they think everyone will believe; they will go for the people who everyone is less likley to believe and will gaslight them into thinking that no one will believe them.
Beach at the time was also considered a project, so even though there was some investing in him, the 'hawks brass likley looked at him more like they looked at a guy like McNeill and less like a guy like Kane or Toews. There is no question here that the Hawks staff (especially McD. and the HR dept.) was negligent. Yes...and Gary. I will beat that horse.To understand the motivations of the people involved, we need to get into their heads. Quenneville and Bowman both have said little publicly (which is undoubtedly their best move legally). I suspect neither recognized Aldrich's "predator behavior" because they were blinded by homophobia. They saw Beach as a willing participant who became embarrassed after sobering up. This is fully possible, and was their undoing. Based on the report I think both of them might have been less influenced by homophobia, and more influenced on focusing on the cup run. I think they hoped that they could just kick the can down the road--again, to their detriment. Maybe they did hope it would blow over, but they did nothing and paid for their inaction.
As an aside, predators are often great at concealing their behaviors; they have to be. McD, Stan, Q, everyone *except* Gary could have been reasonably blind to his behavior. Gary should have been trained enough to spot it--or he got his psychology degree out of a cracker-jack box--hyperbole intended. That explains, but doesn't exonerate the Brass' behavior. My guess is that many if not most professional sports organizations have at one time or another covered up sex-related scandals among players (affairs, homosexual dalliances, complaints of rough sex etc). Studies show that up to 10% of the overall population have engaged in homosexual activity at one time or another. Yet not a single NHL player in the game's history has ever come out in public. Personally, I find the fact that Sopel subsequently took the cup to Chicago's pride parade after all of this ironic with looked at through the lens of your comment. No one in the NHL has publicly came out and in my opinion, it shouldn't matter. But, just because scandals were covered up doesn't make them any more right or wrong, and it this case, because a scandal hit the limelight, doesn't mean that the previous coverups make this okay. It would be like saying Voynov shouldn't be vilified for beating his wife because Bobby Hull got away with it. Both should be villified.See Bolded above: To answer this and BigT : Q, Stan, McD, *anyone* with authority over Aldrich could have and should have kept them separated until a proper investigation could have been done. As aforementioned: Paid administrative leave for Aldrich. Gary should not have told Beach that the assault was his fault. Gary was likely a mandatory reporter; if true he was professionally obligated to go to the police irrespective of Beach's wishes. If the police would have done nothing then the 'hawks and their brass would have done their due diligence, and the culpability transfers to the police. I believe I mentioned the psychology of the matter of those who aren't mandatory reporters earlier in this thread, but in a nutshell it's a fine line because they should encourage the victim to go to the police, but if they don't want to lose trust with the victim and report themselves or force the victim to report. Gary, if he is/was a Mandatory reporter, would be obligated to report and would have been obligated to tell Beach as such. As for Beach and his age and whatnot. For starters he was likely told from Day 1 that he should always listen to his coaches and do everything that they say--most likely from his parents, and this behavior reinforced through his childhood and adolescence. Aldrich, being a predator, would have used that to his advantage. In fact, the report directly said he told *all* of the black aces that he had Q's ear and could get them on the team. He used typical abuser behavior: gained trust, tied to be buddy-buddy and be their friend and gain their complete trust *before* he did any assault. In Beach he saw a troubled young adult with issues who people would have a hard time believing. It is actually no different than rapists who look for "promiscuous" women because they feel it's easier to manipulate and gaslight them into believe that no one will believe them if they accuse them of rape, and the fact that most laypeople won't believe them because "they were asking for it." Aldrich found a victim in Beach: A young adult with issues who likes to party, who people wouldn't believe because of his behavior and who he could groom. Plus his size would make most laypeople question how a smaller man like Aldrich could victimize a larger man like Beach: Again, Position of Authority--this concept was known back then--maybe not to laypeople but to those in the field. Ergo, it doesn't matter if Beach was 15 or 25; his past legally had no standing with the actions that happened--bully or not. Mental issues or not. Substance abuse or not. Past sleeping with prostitutes or not. Man or Woman doesn't matter. It's why even back ~2010 that a woman rape victim is not allowed to be questioned about her sexual history or what she was wearing. Past actions do not negate the ability to consent. Source: Wife. 10+years as a forensic interviewer. She's forgotten more on the topic than everyone here, including myself, knows. I’m not arguing that you’re wrong. I think what I’m saying is just because someone knew, doesn’t mean they should pay for this. Q more than likely had no say over firing the assistant video coach. Q might not have been able to fire Aldrich, but he could have kept Beach away from him. Same with Stan. My wife shut me down on this as being not a way should have been handled, but it's worth mentioning that both Q and Stan could have taken Beach off of the Black Aces to get him away from Aldrich. I mean, yeah, you're punishing the victim but in the immediate you keep a predator away from their prey.So, they were in a meeting and briefed on this matter as far as I know. Stan may have known more and sooner in his role as GM. And I’m sure McD being the guy he is told them in the harshest way to shut up about this and leave it with him. He wanted the Cup final to go by without a hitch. He got what he wanted. It was him and the HR dept. They failed him. I'm not arguing the depth and breadth on McD and HR's culpability (and Gary). They are more culpable than anyone not named Aldrich. It doesn't lessen that Q and Stan mostly likely could have done something--I think the inquiry afterwards speaks to that; Q and Stan were forced out, Cheveldayoff wasn't. I think it's because Q and Stan could have done something, but didn't. Cheveldayoff might not have had the authority to do so. Same with the bathroom attendant.I’m sure there was a bathroom attendant that overheard this too. Should that person be to blame? I don’t know. I’m not shaming the victim. But I do find it hard to find him a victim in this. If he went out drinking with him once and this happened, then I’d fully agree. I fully understand everything you’ve put up there. I’m not saying anything against it. This is just my outlook on it. So I hope you don’t take this as a shaming of a victim. I do however have to question it. If that makes sense to you!!! Keep in mind Aldrich was grooming him and trying to get Beach to trust him, so Beach and him doing all that stuff was most likely part of Aldrich's set-up game. It's grooming behavior 101. It also didn't help that throughout all of Beach's life that his parents, etc. were all telling him that he needs to listen to his coaches without question, always obey them, don't back-talk them, etc. That foundation--that never question and always obey does linger into adulthood.
As I mentioned before, the reason why people do find it hard to not see Beach as a victim is because of his history. A person with history is a predator's dream because they are easier to manipulate into not telling, and because people are less likely to believe them if they do tell. In the same vein: a prostitute can be raped and are often chosen because people are less likely to believe them that the act was unconsent. Same with the archaic and wrong belief that if a woman was wearing revealing clothes 'she was asking for it'. It's all going into the psychology of why predators choose who they do. Ergo: your stance on why you find it hard to find him a victim is EXACTLY why Aldrich singled him out. Aldrich plied him and groomed him; he got into his head and likley chose him, specifically because he would be one of the least likely to be believed or tell anyone that anything happened.
Plus, him being a man makes it so laypeople don't equate similar victimization if the victim was a woman. Gender actually doesn't matter in this case.
I don't think that you or anyone here is 'shaming' him, as such. I do think that the fact of victimization being equal across genders (especially in primarily male environments) is a new concept for a lot of people and old ideas/prejudices die hard. I've gleaned a little via osmosis by being married to a professional in the field, but a lot of people do hold onto old ideas that are obsolete in the field--if that makes sense.
Again, see bolded: |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Apr 26, 2024 12:06:45 GMT -6
Everything said there just sounds like an asshole taking advantage of a younger impressionable guy. To drag down others will not make it go away, and it won’t make things better. Especially people that have absolutely no way to change the situation.
Again, what could Q or Stan done differently? And I don’t mean the low hanging fruit. In which they both go over their bosses head. That was never gonna happen. And it wouldn’t happen today!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by bigbarn27 on Apr 26, 2024 12:39:10 GMT -6
Would like to remind everyone that we will never know what happened. Jenner and block report was not under oath as much as it might shine some light on it none of it is fact. The report was put together by hawks request so they could figure the best avenue to proceed it had nothing to do about right or wrong or the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Apr 26, 2024 13:39:14 GMT -6
Would like to remind everyone that we will never know what happened. Jenner and block report was not under oath as much as it might shine some light on it none of it is fact. The report was put together by hawks request so they could figure the best avenue to proceed it had nothing to do about right or wrong or the truth. Also, I’m not saying Aldrich’s word is worthy. But he never gave his side. And he probably never will. So, with what you said and all the other facts and non facts. It never went to court and it’s tough to just say Beach is a victim and if you don’t agree you’re part of the problem!!! |
|
|
|
Post by 2old4this on Apr 26, 2024 19:24:40 GMT -6
Everything said there just sounds like an asshole taking advantage of a younger impressionable guy. To drag down others will not make it go away, and it won’t make things better. Especially people that have absolutely no way to change the situation. Again, what could Q or Stan done differently? And I don’t mean the low hanging fruit. In which they both go over their bosses head. That was never gonna happen. And it wouldn’t happen today!!! Q should have followed up by questioning the one who said he'd take care of it. |
|
