"And yeah, I really care what Rick Tocchet, the former bookmaker, thinks of Ovechkin showing people up. Like his values make him a quality judge."
- Steve Simmons, Toronto Sun
about 3 years ago
J.P.
11 comments
0 recs |
Comments
Am I the only one that doesn’t care that Tocchet was involved in a gambling ring? As long as he didn’t bet on hockey I don’t really care. His comments about AO’s celebration were not meant to define a universal moral truth; they were to say that with respect to the game of hockey, that kind of celebration has not, and should not, be tolerated. You can disagree with his take on the AO celebration, and many of us here have disagreed, but going back to the gambling thing to in an attempt to discredit him is just lame, IMO. So what, he broke the law (a stupid law), but he played in the NHL for a long time and he’s an NHL coach. You can’t dismiss his knowledge and understanding of the game out of hand just because he was involved in a gambling ring.
by Rob Parker on Mar 22, 2009 6:13 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Didn’t sound to me like Simmons was questioning Tocchet’s hockey knowledge, but pointing out the absurdity of Tocchet’s statement that Ovechkin “went down a notch in my book” after the celebration. Which, of course, is ironic as all hell. You’re correct, you can’t dismiss his knowledge just because he was involved in a gambling operation. But you certainly can laugh when he attempts to call someone else’s character into question.
i’m pretty sure Tocchet’s “down a notch” comment was confined to his opinion of AO as a hockey player, which surely can be informed by how AO acts in the context of broader hockey norms. Tocchet’s transgressions had nothing to do with hockey norms, they had to do with the laws of the United States. If Tocchet had said AO is a bad person or something like that then maybe you could say that was relevant. But Tocchet’s opinion was specifically applied to the context of NHL tradition. Maybe this is my political views coming through, but I don’t think breaking laws necessarily carries any moral weight. If Tocchet had committed a DWI (a more dangerous crime than the one he did commit) would that be in any way relevant to his impression of AO as an NHL hockey player?
You’ve got to admit that it’s funny that Tocchet used the phrase “in my book,” all things considered.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Yes, I do. I’m not trying to say the gambling stuff is off limits. I love a good zinger as much as anyone. I just think the gambling prosecution is irrelevant to hockey and the guy has obviously got more knowledge and experience about the NHL than the vast majority of people that use the gambling thing as an excuse to take shots at his credibility. If you want to take shots at his hockey knowledge just look at the records of the teams he has coached. The more I think about it the more I think it’s a visceral reaction that I get whenever vice laws are discussed.
You may be right about the context of Tocchet’s comment, but that’s not how I read it.
As for breaking laws – I tend to believe that breaking the law is by definition an immoral act, but that might just be the 12 years of brainwashing Catholic school speaking….
We’re kind of delving away from hockey here, but I think that’s too black and white a definition – I don’t think there’s anything immoral about a 20 year old having a beer, for example.
Un-training 12 years of Catholic school education is going to require more than a blog comments section. But start here.





































