Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Former player accuses Flames head coach Bill Peters of using racial slur -- Peters resigns

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

but you can't take out the clearly negative and hurtful part of using the n-word. Its something that everyone in our culture knows it was wrong for Peters to use - if he used it - and it would be a memorable incident for many people in the area of it. Its the hurtful and negative part that makes it memorable. 

Okay. So what I was saying is that recollection after a decade has been proven to be skewed. The request to remove the slur itself was so that you could consider recollection itself out of context of the act, and consider how human memory is affected over time.

7 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Recollection and eye witness testimony is very unreliable for sure. But in this incident we wouldn't need anyone to remember the timing, where it occurred, what someone looked like, etc. just if a particular phrase was used. Its actually pretty straightforward imo. 

I totally disagree. Any detail, regardless of how minute or seemingly irrelevant they seem, lend credibility to a witness statement. Just saying that you heard it being said doesn't make it factual.

7 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

What other evidence would you expect for a conversation in a locker room other than people saying they heard it?

Details that others, like Akim Aliu or Bill Peters could corroborate. The date, the time, whether it was a practice or a game, the location within the room that the altercation took place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, timberz21 said:

Statute of limitation is a legal concept.  Even if Peters cannot be found guilty by the courts, doesn't mean there aren't any moral and ethical dilemma.

 

The NFL and MLB hands out punishment for domestic violence even though most of them are never found guilty by the legal system.

Yes but passing judgement on something that happened 10 years ago going on he said he said? Also it's a little unfair for the woke to judge people at a time when society wasn't woke. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize that hockey is one of the least multicultural sports in the world.

If you look at all of the management and coaching staff of all the NHL teams and the NHL, how many people are not white men?

Don Cherry actually was a pretty good representative of how the NHL is run.

While I doubt individuals for the most part are intentionally denying non-white men and women from the process it speaks to a clear bias.

So it is not surprising when something like this happens, disappointing certainly but not surprising.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, smokes said:

Yes but passing judgement on something that happened 10 years ago going on he said he said? Also it's a little unfair for the woke to judge people at a time when society wasn't woke. 

I think 10 years ago we understood that that sort of language was clearly racist.

The title woke is new, the concept is not.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

for sure we need to hear Peters side of this before making some sort of judgment. 

 

It does speak to character tho if true, even if some sort of 'limit' has passed. 

 

The focus on timing is fascinating, like somehow it makes it less bad if a person waits to come forward. There's no big reward waiting for the vast majority of whistle blowers, its quite the opposite. There's a lot of legit reasons people wait. In fact it could work in Peters favour, if he has no history of being a doofus since it lends credibility to his side. 

It was a different society ten to fifteen years ago though. Things that are not accepted now were no so unacceptable ten years ago. Also why are we so quick at just taking the accusers word? Because he's claiming racism and so we need to be outraged by it regardless if it is proven or not?

Edited by smokes
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

We're moving away from this notion we've held dearly for so long. All it takes is an accusation nowadays to potentially ruin your career, possibly your way of life. I feel for Akim if it's true but these things must be proven because the alternative is even worse..

If accusers are going to come out of the woodwork at least have proof before you go and ruin someone's life.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Okay. So what I was saying is that recollection after a decade has been proven to be skewed. The request to remove the slur itself was so that you could consider recollection itself out of context of the act, and consider how human memory is affected over time.

I totally disagree. Any detail, regardless of how minute or seemingly irrelevant they seem, lend credibility to a witness statement. Just saying that you heard it being said doesn't make it factual.

Details that others, like Akim Aliu or Bill Peters could corroborate. The date, the time, whether it was a practice or a game, the location within the room that the altercation took place.

right but we have all that already. We know the where (locker room), with who (Peters and Aliu), people involved (team mates), etc. The NHL wouldn't need someone to reconstruct the entire thing from memory.

 

I agree if you were asked out of the blue as a former team mate to recall all the details, you probably can't get it all correct. But that doesn't mean you can't recall with validity a key moment. In this case its pretty easy, if you were standing there and heard it, it would be pretty memorable even if you can't recall if it was an away or a home game, e.g. 

 

We all have memories like this, it doesn't make it invalid if you can't perfectly recall the entire context. I guarantee you remember taking your wedding vows but I bet you can't remember the menu. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

I think 10 years ago we understood that that sort of language was clearly racist.

The title woke is new, the concept is not.

People get offended a lot more easily nowadays then before though and people don't get thier life destroyed over stupid comments. Everyone says dumb things at times but doesn't mean people should judge thier whole lives because of it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, smokes said:

It was a different society ten to fifteen years ago though. Things that are not accepted now were no so unacceptable ten years ago. Also are we so quick at just taking the accusers word? Because he's claiming racism and so we need to be outraged by it regardless if it is proven or not?

um, I think 10 years ago we all knew this wasn't a good word to use. 

 

Of course we need to wait to hear Peters side. What @PhillipBlunt and i are discussing is what would constitute valid evidence for a bystander that may have overheard it. 

Edited by Jimmy McGill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

right but we have all that already. We know the where (locker room), with who (Peters and Aliu), people involved (team mates), etc. The NHL wouldn't need someone to reconstruct the entire thing from memory.

According to only one individual involved, at the present time.

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I agree if you were asked out of the blue as a former team mate to recall all the details, you probably can't get it all correct. But that doesn't mean you can't recall with validity a key moment.

Details lend validity to the "key moment". The burden of proof is a necessity and should be taken far more seriously than it has been recently.

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

In this case its pretty easy, if you were standing there and heard it, it would be pretty memorable even if you can't recall if it was an away or a home game, e.g.

Dates, times, personnel all matter and lend credibility to a witness statement.

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

We all have memories like this, it doesn't make it invalid if you can't perfectly recall the entire context. I guarantee you remember taking your wedding vows but I bet you can't remember the menu. 

While it doesn't make it invalid, it fails to exact credibility, as well.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

According to only one individual involved, at the present time.

Details lend validity to the "key moment". The burden of proof is a necessity and should be taken far more seriously than it has been recently.

Dates, times, personnel all matter and lend credibility to a witness statement.

While it doesn't make it invalid, it fails to exact credibility, as well.

oh absolutely. Memory is a funny thing tho, you tend to get so many details wrong its almost impossible to remember anything as it really was. 

 

For me, a former player or two saying "yes, I did over hear that kind of thing once or twice" would be pretty damning. I don't think you can mis-remember the n-word. I think it would be a case of team mates saying "no I don't recall anything like that" or "yes I do" and the details of the context would be variable.

 

It'll be interesting to see the statement out of Peters. 

Edited by Jimmy McGill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ur a Towel said:

From an article that just came out from TSN.

“He walked in before a morning pre-game skate and said ‘Hey Akim, I’m sick of you playing that n----- s---,’ ” Aliu told TSN, with Peters, who was then the Ice Hogs head coach, referring to Aliu’s selection of hip-hop music. “He said ‘I’m sick of hearing this n-----s f------ other n-----s in the ass stuff.’ 

“He then walked out like nothing ever happened. You could hear a pin drop in the room, everything went dead silent. I just sat down in my stall, didn’t say a word.”

Two of Aliu’s Rockford teammates who were in the room at the time of the alleged incident, Simon Pepin and Peter MacArthur, independently corroborated Aliu’s account to TSN on Tuesday.

"I think everyone should be held accountable for their actions or words spoken," Pepin said.

 

Link to the full article here https://www.tsn.ca/akim-aliu-speaks-publicly-on-allegations-against-calgary-flames-head-coach-bill-peters-1.1403974

Now that's more like it. Evidence and proof to support Aliu's statement. I do hope that Pepin and MacArthur have spoke to more than just a sports news channel about this.

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

um, I think 10 years ago we all knew this wasn't' a good word to use. 

 

Of course we need to wait to hear Peters side. What @PhillipBlunt and i are discussing is what would constitute valid evidence for a bystander that may have overhead it. 

It wasn't a good word to use but back in the day private conversations stayed that and they weren't any other people's business. Now it's this person hurt my feelings so lets get the court of public judgement to hurt this guy over a private matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -Vintage Canuck- changed the title to Former player accuses Flames head coach Bill Peters of using racial slur -- Peters resigns

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...