Capitals: Brendan Leipsic's Instagram messages are 'unacceptable and offensive'

[JM_]

8 hours ago, filthycanuck said:

Its also the world we live in now. Geez, after all the #metoo movement, anti-bullying, truly bad things to say in this social climate where everybody is supersensitive and ever comment is being pretty much policed. Profesional athletes need to conduct themselves as that, PROFESSIONAL because any bad press they get reflects on them, the team and the league.

particularly if you're not the most important guy on the team, its easier to make an example of you. 

[apollo]

17 hours ago, austy said:

I dunno mate, if there is a line in the art of the chirp, then surely bullying a guy about his experience with child abuse has crossed it. 

Wait burrows was chirping him over child abuse? I guess I remembered the story wrong... I thought it was just saying things about his mom or family... Not child abuse...

 

 

As much as I love burrows and he's my top 5 list of humans, that's at least 14x worse than what Leipsic said. But I guess the social justice warriors didn't have as much time on their hands when Burr said his words... We are in a pandemic after all. 

 

 

People can control their weight. People can't control being abused as a child... 

 

Brendan said it in private... Burr said it out loud... 

 

Glad burrows didn't get the horrid treatment Brendan is getting over this. 

 

Long live the dragon slayer! 

 

Spread love, kindness and positivity. Not school boy gossip and invading peoples privacy in which we have 0 business meddling in. 

[apollo]

20 hours ago, HI5 said:

I wonder how many athletes and executives would get fired if their browser histories were hacked and made public. 

At least 50%+ ... It's 2020 after all. Privacy is not a right anymore it appears. 

 

Social media is a curse. 

 

Next up. Hackers are installing live stream cameras in all our toilets! 

 

[Smashian Kassian]

8 hours ago, filthycanuck said:

The irony, everybodys thumping the bible on freedom of speech and yet every comment is microanalyzed and exposed to criticism. People who want privacy, not wanting the web to know their habits, putting tape on webcams, and yet, they'll whip out their camera phones to take pics or videos to freely shame someone and get involved in other peoples business

 

My point wasn't so much a 'bible thumping' defense free speech (tho I guess that issue is nested inside somewhere), it's more where's the line exactly? What's what? It's important that things aren't arbitrary. 

 

And everybody wants privacy, atleast to some degree, that's not partisan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[-DLC-]

1 hour ago, apollo said:

Wait burrows was chirping him over child abuse? I guess I remembered the story wrong... I thought it was just saying things about his mom or family... Not child abuse...

 

 

As much as I love burrows and he's my top 5 list of humans, that's at least 14x worse than what Leipsic said. But I guess the social justice warriors didn't have as much time on their hands when Burr said his words... We are in a pandemic after all. 

 

 

People can control their weight. People can't control being abused as a child... 

 

Brendan said it in private... Burr said it out loud... 

 

Glad burrows didn't get the horrid treatment Brendan is getting over this. 

 

Long live the dragon slayer! 

 

Spread love, kindness and positivity. Not school boy gossip and invading peoples privacy in which we have 0 business meddling in. 

Burrows trash talked (as inappropriate as it was - and it was) on ice during a game and paid his dues/owned it.  It's not better than gossip when it's something so personal...you're right.  Can't argue that.

Leipsic and his crew are doing it "in private" and it wasn't one guy/rival hockey player going at another...it was a group of guys targeting others in a mob mentality thing.  Not in the heat of the moment as a one on one escalates.  The other parties weren't even aware...but once this was made public, it's hurtful just the same.  Seemingly done for kicks and without the adrenaline/emotion of a game propelling it or as a carry over from two rivals battling.

 

They're both awful in content.  Both are wrong. 

But...one is reactionary and the other is more of a predatory thing that wasn't "spurred" or in the moment.  It's not any more acceptable but it's more understandable when there's a heated exchange and someone says something terrible and vile.  I think we've all been there...wish we hadn't said something we did when we were angry.  Anger tends to bring out the worst. 

This stuff was done for "laughs".  "Fun".  The cruelty was a theme, not a reaction.  In a relaxed, group "chat".

 

Burr didn't offer excuses of why ("I was hacked").  He said it was awful and he shouldn't have gone there.  And he did change his game a whole lot as he did learn/mature. 

Burr's had to pay the price...now it's Leipsic's turn.  Not sure why that's hard to understand?   They both are wrong and both have consequences.

Burr certainly has gotten horrible treatment (and still is it seems?).  The very fact that people are bringing him up is testament to that.  So Burr doesn't excuse Leipsic.  And Burr has done some really good things, too.  Leipsic's bragging about loving coke, which isn't so good.  So, hopefully, he'll do some good and let us all just move on and focus on the good things he'll do from here on in.  That would be a positive out of all this...if he learns, matures and uses his life for something better than getting wasted and targeting people "in private".  Twenty five isn't a juvenile...you are awarded responsibilities as an adult - you can vote, drink, smoke, drive.  So the expectation is maturity that comes with those things.

 

When private goes public, that's when you have to consider if what you're saying is something you stand behind or not.  If so, own it.  If not, own it.  But learn from it or it's a wasted apology. 

 

Look...other guys have had issues and done things.  It's what they do afterward that counts in their legacy.  If they carry on down d bag road, well, it probably means they're a d bag.  If they have a lightbulb moment and realize the hurtful nature of their actions and change them, then all is eventually forgotten.  

 

Hopefully he'll become more empathic.

 

If you're bringing up Burr to show how wrong it is but arguing it isn't "wrong" when Leipsic did it because....it's a conflicting message.  If it wasn't ok for Burr it isn't ok for Leipsic.  And it wasn't (for either).

 

Burr was a heart and soul in it for the team guy.  Leipsic's out there trashing former and other teammates.  Ones that he sat beside on the bench.  Not heated rivals...so called "brothers".  There's a back stabbing element to this, on top of the racial and misogynistic stuff so it's a really dirty pool he's swimming in.  No loyalty, empathy and wasn't done in a heated exchange.  "FOR FUN".  

 

This isn't to offer excuses for Burr's actions - there are none.  Just to compare how there are differences in lashing out in a heated exchange and using cruel words and just plain being cruel as a hobby.  In how they're rooted, even if it doesn't really matter a whole lot in the end.  If this HAD remained in private, I'm not sure the actions they were bragging about were really appropriate to share either. 

As for those saying "private...shouldn't have been shared"?!!   "Private" moments with females were shared amongst this group...and were extremely vulgar and insulting in nature.  I'm sure that "those" private moments should have also been respected as such.  Double standard there.

[RWMc1]

37 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

Burrows trash talked (as inappropriate as it was - and it was) on ice during a game and paid his dues/owned it.  It's not better than gossip when it's something so personal...you're right.  Can't argue that.

Leipsic and his crew are doing it "in private" and it wasn't one guy/rival hockey player going at another...it was a group of guys targeting others in a mob mentality thing.  Not in the heat of the moment as a one on one escalates.  The other parties weren't even aware...but once this was made public, it's hurtful just the same.  Seemingly done for kicks and without the adrenaline/emotion of a game propelling it or as a carry over from two rivals battling.

 

They're both awful in content.  Both are wrong. 

But...one is reactionary and the other is more of a predatory thing that wasn't "spurred" or in the moment.  It's not any more acceptable but it's more understandable when there's a heated exchange and someone says something terrible and vile.  I think we've all been there...wish we hadn't said something we did when we were angry.  Anger tends to bring out the worst. 

This stuff was done for "laughs".  "Fun".  The cruelty was a theme, not a reaction.  In a relaxed, group "chat".

 

Burr didn't offer excuses of why ("I was hacked").  He said it was awful and he shouldn't have gone there.  And he did change his game a whole lot as he did learn/mature. 

Burr's had to pay the price...now it's Leipsic's turn.  Not sure why that's hard to understand?   They both are wrong and both have consequences.

Burr certainly has gotten horrible treatment (and still is it seems?).  The very fact that people are bringing him up is testament to that.  So Burr doesn't excuse Leipsic.  And Burr has done some really good things, too.  Leipsic's bragging about loving coke, which isn't so good.  So, hopefully, he'll do some good and let us all just move on and focus on the good things he'll do from here on in.  That would be a positive out of all this...if he learns, matures and uses his life for something better than getting wasted and targeting people "in private".  Twenty five isn't a juvenile...you are awarded responsibilities as an adult - you can vote, drink, smoke, drive.  So the expectation is maturity that comes with those things.

 

When private goes public, that's when you have to consider if what you're saying is something you stand behind or not.  If so, own it.  If not, own it.  But learn from it or it's a wasted apology. 

 

Look...other guys have had issues and done things.  It's what they do afterward that counts in their legacy.  If they carry on down d bag road, well, it probably means they're a d bag.  If they have a lightbulb moment and realize the hurtful nature of their actions and change them, then all is eventually forgotten.  How it tends to happen. 

 

Hopefully he'll become more empathic.

 

If you're bringing up Burr to show how wrong it is but arguing it isn't "wrong" when Leipsic did it because....it's a conflicting message.  If it wasn't ok for Burr it isn't ok for Leipsic.  And it wasn't (for either).

 

Burr was a heart and soul in it for the team guy.  Leipsic's out there trashing former and other teammates.  Ones that he sat beside on the bench.  Not heated rivals...so called "brothers".  There's a back stabbing element to this, on top of the racial and misogynistic stuff so it's a really dirty pool he's swimming in.  No loyalty, empathy and wasn't done in a heated exchange.  "FOR FUN".  

 

This isn't to offer excuses for Burr's actions - there are none.  Just to compare how there are differences in lashing out in a heated exchange and using cruel words and just plain being cruel as a hobby.  In how they're rooted, even if it doesn't really matter a whole lot in the end.  If this HAD remained in private, I'm not sure the actions they were bragging about were really appropriate to share either.  "Private" moments with females (but they're probably full of crap and some of their angst is due to the fact that others do have wives and children...some jealousy maybe?).  I'm sure that "those" private moments should have also been respected as such but were, instead, shared in a vulgar way??  Those girls were also "hacked".  Double standard there.

I believe Burrows when he said that he didn't realize how bad of an insult or"burn" it was at the time. He seemed to be genuinely sorry when he apologized.

Many Canucks fan have heard the story of how Kes and Bieker kept a list of things about other players to use against them and hopefully throw them off of their games. I have a strong suspicion that this incident transpired because of that. That doesn't excuse it of course.

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

 

Live image of Leipsic the moment somebody tells him how many grams of cocaine he could’ve bought with all the salary he’s lost.

[ItsAllOursBoys]

On 5/6/2020 at 11:50 PM, debluvscanucks said:

Nope.

 

This is totally inappropriate talk in this day and age.  If you don't understand that, you probably should try harder to.  I hope you're young and that explains why you don't get why this is not ok.

 

Most real people don't talk like this.  It's offensive and hate fuelled.

Leipsic's comments are inappropriate in any day and age.

 

However, its a slippery slope when society begins to police the personal expression of opinion or speech, no matter how hateful, improper, or offensive such speech is to our sensibilities. Leipsic has made himself the latest sacrifice lamb to be slaughtered on society's altar of "tolerance" and "inclusiveness," yet for some reason, society lost it's desire for blood and became more forgiving about Trudeau's multiple black-face obscenities. But alas, like wearing masks in public, such social hypocrisy has become the new norm.

 

Leipsic should be called out for his comments, that much is certain. However, there's a fine line between making one accountable for socially inappropriate comments and embracing a form of social totalitarianism that's established by majority consent.

 

 

 

[RWMc1]

4 minutes ago, ItsAllOursBoys said:

Leipsic's comments are inappropriate in any day and age.

 

However, its a slippery slope when society begins to police the personal expression of opinion or speech, no matter how hateful, improper, or offensive such speech is to our sensibilities. Leipsic has made himself the latest sacrifice lamb to be slaughtered on society's altar of "tolerance" and "inclusiveness," yet for some reason, society lost it's desire for blood and became more forgiving about Trudeau's multiple black-face obscenities. But alas, like wearing masks in public, such social hypocrisy has become the new norm.

 

Leipsic should be called out for his comments, that much is certain. However, there's a fine line between making one accountable for socially inappropriate comments and embracing a form of social totalitarianism that's established by majority consent.

 

 

 

Where I work, we have an employee Code of Conduct form that all employees must sign. That is standard in many workplaces.

 

Society didn't cut ties with leipsic, the Washington Capitols did. The rest of the NHL probably won't touch him either. Their growth in the States supersedes all and they won't allow a low level player to negatively impact it. That is what he is a victim of.

 

As far as society judging and condemning him goes, i see many posters on this site defending him.

 

 

[Down by the River]

 

And then:

 

 

 

Putting hockey players in front of a mic and then thinking that they are definitely going to have anything valuable to say will always be a game of Russian Roulette. 

 

Brett Hull's comments that he didn't like hockey, he was just good at it, seem to have some truth to him. He doesn't like hockey, he likes the lifestyle that comes with being rich. He's upset here because now you can get caught. He liked things before when nothing could be proven.

 

I'd argue that the Hull family might be worse than the Leipsic family. Either way, I'm not shocked. I'm not offended. Just stop thinking that hockey players are a bunch of good old Canadian kids and you'll stop being disappointed in a given player's behavior.  

[ItsAllOursBoys]

14 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

Where I work, we have an employee Code of Conduct form that all employees must sign. That is standard in many workplaces.

 

Society didn't cut ties with leipsic, the Washington Capitols did. The rest of the NHL probably won't touch him either. Their growth in the States supersedes all and they won't allow a low level player to negatively impact it. That is what he is a victim of.

 

As far as society judging and condemning him goes, i see many posters on this site defending him.

 

 

I would respectfully disagree with you. Legal code of conducts are to ensure that employees don't "offend" other employees, embarrass the company or tarnish the company image. Legality isn't necessarily a universal guide for proper behavior, but what's proper to those in charge.

 

I could be wrong, but I suspect that the Washington Capitals didn't necessarily cut ties with Leipsic because of the personal moral stance of it's owners. What's more probable is the club's fear of loosing fans and the public backlash and lynching of their their franchise.

 

 

[lmm]

25 minutes ago, ItsAllOursBoys said:

Leipsic's comments are inappropriate in any day and age.

 

However, its a slippery slope when society begins to police the personal expression of opinion or speech, no matter how hateful, improper, or offensive such speech is to our sensibilities. Leipsic has made himself the latest sacrifice lamb to be slaughtered on society's altar of "tolerance" and "inclusiveness," yet for some reason, society lost it's desire for blood and became more forgiving about Trudeau's multiple black-face obscenities. But alas, like wearing masks in public, such social hypocrisy has become the new norm.

 

Leipsic should be called out for his comments, that much is certain. However, there's a fine line between making one accountable for socially inappropriate comments and embracing a form of social totalitarianism that's established by majority consent.

 

 

 

I disagree.

Leipsic's comments would not have been inapropriate in the 50-60-70.

You've no doubpt seen retro ads of who to spank your wife to keep her in line.

Not acceptable today, but they were.

 

Trudeau's black face has several things going for it,

1 it was a long time ago, and we like to believe people deserve a second chance.

2 he was running against Andrew Sheer, who currently opposes abortion

3 society values womens issues over black issues

4 the political system is rigged

 

What happens to Leipsic is not social totalitarianism.

He has not been condemmed to jail or work camp because of his mistake, he is free to look for work with like minded people.

If he applied to work for me, I would turn him down. Would you hire him?

He has not been banned from the NHL, the Caps have excersized their right to end their relationship, however should another team want to take a chance, I am sure there are some hoops that Leipsic could jump to get back in the league.

His biggest problem is that there is not enough upside to take that chance, but Kassian got his chance and I think we can all agree, it was his last.

[peaches5]

Hockey players are public figures. The public is basically paying for their salaries. If the public doesn't support the team ownership won't have money to pay the players. If you want to keep getting paid then don't be Leipsic. Pretty clear message here. He didn't just target random girls either he targeted players and their girlfriends... Players will not want him on their team. You think someone wants to play with a plug who is making fun of them behind their backs? You can only get away with that if you are an elite player and even then it's going to be rough for you if it leaks out.

Edited May 10, 2020 by peaches5

[JM_]

2 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

Burrows trash talked (as inappropriate as it was - and it was) on ice during a game and paid his dues/owned it.  It's not better than gossip when it's something so personal...you're right.  Can't argue that.

Leipsic and his crew are doing it "in private" and it wasn't one guy/rival hockey player going at another...it was a group of guys targeting others in a mob mentality thing.  Not in the heat of the moment as a one on one escalates.  The other parties weren't even aware...but once this was made public, it's hurtful just the same.  Seemingly done for kicks and without the adrenaline/emotion of a game propelling it or as a carry over from two rivals battling.

 

They're both awful in content.  Both are wrong. 

But...one is reactionary and the other is more of a predatory thing that wasn't "spurred" or in the moment.  It's not any more acceptable but it's more understandable when there's a heated exchange and someone says something terrible and vile.  I think we've all been there...wish we hadn't said something we did when we were angry.  Anger tends to bring out the worst. 

This stuff was done for "laughs".  "Fun".  The cruelty was a theme, not a reaction.  In a relaxed, group "chat".

 

Burr didn't offer excuses of why ("I was hacked").  He said it was awful and he shouldn't have gone there.  And he did change his game a whole lot as he did learn/mature. 

Burr's had to pay the price...now it's Leipsic's turn.  Not sure why that's hard to understand?   They both are wrong and both have consequences.

Burr certainly has gotten horrible treatment (and still is it seems?).  The very fact that people are bringing him up is testament to that.  So Burr doesn't excuse Leipsic.  And Burr has done some really good things, too.  Leipsic's bragging about loving coke, which isn't so good.  So, hopefully, he'll do some good and let us all just move on and focus on the good things he'll do from here on in.  That would be a positive out of all this...if he learns, matures and uses his life for something better than getting wasted and targeting people "in private".  Twenty five isn't a juvenile...you are awarded responsibilities as an adult - you can vote, drink, smoke, drive.  So the expectation is maturity that comes with those things.

 

When private goes public, that's when you have to consider if what you're saying is something you stand behind or not.  If so, own it.  If not, own it.  But learn from it or it's a wasted apology. 

 

Look...other guys have had issues and done things.  It's what they do afterward that counts in their legacy.  If they carry on down d bag road, well, it probably means they're a d bag.  If they have a lightbulb moment and realize the hurtful nature of their actions and change them, then all is eventually forgotten.  

 

Hopefully he'll become more empathic.

 

If you're bringing up Burr to show how wrong it is but arguing it isn't "wrong" when Leipsic did it because....it's a conflicting message.  If it wasn't ok for Burr it isn't ok for Leipsic.  And it wasn't (for either).

 

Burr was a heart and soul in it for the team guy.  Leipsic's out there trashing former and other teammates.  Ones that he sat beside on the bench.  Not heated rivals...so called "brothers".  There's a back stabbing element to this, on top of the racial and misogynistic stuff so it's a really dirty pool he's swimming in.  No loyalty, empathy and wasn't done in a heated exchange.  "FOR FUN".  

 

This isn't to offer excuses for Burr's actions - there are none.  Just to compare how there are differences in lashing out in a heated exchange and using cruel words and just plain being cruel as a hobby.  In how they're rooted, even if it doesn't really matter a whole lot in the end.  If this HAD remained in private, I'm not sure the actions they were bragging about were really appropriate to share either. 

As for those saying "private...shouldn't have been shared"?!!   "Private" moments with females were shared amongst this group...and were extremely vulgar and insulting in nature.  I'm sure that "those" private moments should have also been respected as such.  Double standard there.

^ this. 

 

All I'd add is people act like hockey trash talk has clear boundaries or rules, when it really only has one (or used to anyway) - leave it on the ice. Burr didn't run around saying this to the media, or at some restaurant to the guy, he trashed talked someone on the ice in the heat of the moment. Yes that does count for something. 

 

I know some here disagree with me and thats OK, but there is an element of "power" for lack of a better term, with a sort-of-famous NHL person harassing women, at least one of whom isn't a public person just some girl in Winnipeg who has an Instagram account. If you don't like the term "power" then imbalance might fit better, but whatever term you want to use Leipsic has a platform and he's paid the price for misusing it.

 

I just don't see the equivalence to what Burr did. I know we're in an age where every sin is the same and all punishments must be equivalent, but reality isn't that way. I blame giving every kid a ribbon for that mentality. 

 

[Katobaron]

59 minutes ago, ItsAllOursBoys said:

Leipsic's comments are inappropriate in any day and age.

 

However, its a slippery slope when society begins to police the personal expression of opinion or speech, no matter how hateful, improper, or offensive such speech is to our sensibilities. Leipsic has made himself the latest sacrifice lamb to be slaughtered on society's altar of "tolerance" and "inclusiveness," yet for some reason, society lost it's desire for blood and became more forgiving about Trudeau's multiple black-face obscenities. But alas, like wearing masks in public, such social hypocrisy has become the new norm.

 

Leipsic should be called out for his comments, that much is certain. However, there's a fine line between making one accountable for socially inappropriate comments and embracing a form of social totalitarianism that's established by majority consent.

 

 

 

Part of the reason that celebrities and pro athletes make the money they do is that you live your life under the scrutiny of public opinion. It was Leipsic’s responsibility to represent both himself and the franchise according to the team’s code of conduct. You can argue legality vs morality all you want, but his contract stipulates following the code and he didn’t. If your job asks you to dress in a suit and you show up in khakis, is that social totalitarianism or a workplace violation?

 

Also, the argument that a digital medium somehow lends itself to leniency is laughable. If he’d written all this in a letter to a pen pal and had it intercepted would it make it any different?

[RWMc1]

17 minutes ago, ItsAllOursBoys said:

I would respectfully disagree with you. Legal code of conducts are to ensure that employees don't "offend" other employees, embarrass the company or tarnish the company image. Legality isn't necessarily a universal guide for proper behavior, but what's proper to those in charge.

 

I could be wrong, but I suspect that the Washington Capitals didn't necessarily cut ties with Leipsic because of the personal moral stance of it's owners. What's more probable is the club's fear of loosing fans and the public backlash and lynching of their their franchise.

 

 

51 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

 

 

Their growth in the States supersedes all and they won't allow a low level player to negatively impact it. That is what he is a victim of.

 

As far as society judging and condemning him goes, i see many posters on this site defending him.

 

 

Sorry but that is not a respectful disagreement. That bit at the end is low.

 

You basically paraphrased me to disagree with me.

 

Your method of interaction is disingenuous. I'm not going to respond to you any further so you can strawman the heck out of it.(as usual by the looks of it)

[cuporbust]

On 5/8/2020 at 9:50 AM, Monty said:

If it's nothing illegal, then how much should someone be punished? If someone says something in a group text about me, that's their business. Whether it's true/untrue/flattering/unflattering, that's none of my concern.

 

Doing things in privacy that are illegal (ie: illegal drugs, beating spouse, see other criminal activities), then absolutely they should get punished. But when my brother texts something to his now ex-wife that's neither flattering nor true about my wife, and it ended up getting back to us, her reaction was, "Well, that's Ben (not real name). What else is new?"

Because it's not about breaking the law , but breaking a private company's code of ethics.  It has nothing to do with the law. What does legality have to do with it? If someone owns a company,  they have every right to hold their employees to a basic code of eithics .

Edited May 9, 2020 by cuporbust

[nuckin_futz]

On 5/8/2020 at 10:24 AM, Toews said:

No one gave a F about a fringe NHL tweener nor his thoughts toward his colleagues and their spouses until some hacker decided to cause a stir and leak his private messages on the internet. People have nothing better to do with their time than get outraged at the contents of said messages. The media loves covering degenerates because we can't seem to get enough of them. Oh look some idiot is doing the Nazi salute in a grocery store. Quick, grab your cameras and lets proliferate the image of this doofus through Twitter all over the world for likes and retweets. 

For some reason this reminded me of the song "Vicarious" by Tool .........

 

Eye on the TV
'Cause tragedy thrills me
Whatever flavor it happens to be like
Killed by the husband
Drowned by the ocean
Shot by his own son
She used a poison
In his tea
And kissed him goodbye
That's my kind of story
It's no fun until someone dies

 

Don't look at me like
I am a monster
Frown out your one face
But with the other
Stare like a junkie
Into the TV
Stare like a zombie
While the mother
Holds her child
Watches him die
Hands to the sky crying
"Why, oh why?"

 

'Cause I need to watch things die
From a distance
Vicariously I live
While the whole world dies
You all need it too, don't lie

 

 

****************

 

Bottom line in all this debate is that every NHL contract contains a 'morals clause'. Stating that you will not do anything to embarrass the organization. It's a public business and teams do not want to have their brand represented by bad behavior. Is it not illegal for someone to have multiple affairs and be a homewrecker. But would you want that guy representing your brand? It is not illegal to get drunk and run your mouth. Would you want that guy representing your brand?

 

Of course there are different rules for different people. If Ovechkin said these things they'd make him apologize and that would end it. Unless they wanted out of his contract. Leipsic might think he's more important than he actually is. Being 25 yrs old and making $700k might make you a big shot in general society. In the NHL it makes you an expendable has been.

 

 

Edited May 9, 2020 by nuckin_futz

[Toews]

38 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

For some reason this reminded me of the song "Vicarious" by Tool .........

 

Eye on the TV
'Cause tragedy thrills me
Whatever flavor it happens to be like
Killed by the husband
Drowned by the ocean
Shot by his own son
She used a poison
In his tea
And kissed him goodbye
That's my kind of story
It's no fun until someone dies

 

Don't look at me like
I am a monster
Frown out your one face
But with the other
Stare like a junkie
Into the TV
Stare like a zombie
While the mother
Holds her child
Watches him die
Hands to the sky crying
"Why, oh why?"

 

'Cause I need to watch things die
From a distance
Vicariously I live
While the whole world dies
You all need it too, don't lie

 

 

****************

 

Bottom line in all this debate is that every NHL contract contains a 'morals clause'. Stating that you will not do anything to embarrass the organization. It's a public business and teams do not want to have their brand represented by bad behavior. Is it not illegal for someone to have multiple affairs and be a homewrecker. But would you want that guy representing your brand? It is not illegal to get drunk and run your mouth. Would you want that guy representing your brand?

 

Of course there are different rules for different people. If Ovechkin said these things they'd make him apologize and that would end it. Unless they wanted out of his contract. Leipsic might think he's more important than he actually is. Being 25 yrs old and making $700k might make you a big shot in general society. In the NHL it makes you an expendable has been.

Leipsic was going to end up in Europe anyway, he just fast-tracked himself there. I have no objection to his dismissal, the Caps have to make a business decision which is understandable. I am just looking at social media and all these people who are just ripping on this guy. Why would anyone abuse someone at the lowest point in their life? What is that supposed to accomplish, other than get likes and retweets? I wonder if they look in the mirror and see a fat hypocrite...

[Maniwaki Canuck]

This circle of jerks in the chat group are/were fringe NHLers or less.  It's not a stretch to suggest that they might be dumping on others to make themselves feel better about their own shortcomings.  Often that's how this stuff works. 

Of course the Capitals would have responded differently if it was Ovechkin.  But they don't have to because Ovechkin is Ovechkin and doesn't do this stuff because he is comfortable with his own worth as a player and a person.  Not the case with these guys.