Colin Campbell has made a statement defending his honour and integrity- see here. Look at the last statement attributed to him in the article. It's pretty clear that he (like Nick Kypreos) reads this blog. Good, this article may help him.
I don't think he understands what we have a problem with here. It isn't that we are offended by the word "faker". It isn't that he should have used the term "embellisher of penalties". The problem is that by using any terms of this nature he is showing bias. Here is a quick tip - sentences that are built like "He/she is a Blanker" is an attempt to attach a label someone, usually in a derogatory manner. Lets see how it works - "He is fat". That isn't candor, it is labeling. "He is a liberal" (especially when seen on Fox News) is a label. All labeling is a personal interpretation of someone's actions or words. By using the words that he did, Campbell expressed a predisposition to act against the player. This is unforgivable in a position of power.
And Yes, Mr. Campbell, you do make decisions in a vacuum. See my previous post.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
This CAN get worse, you know
You've read or heard about this already, but here is a link to TSN's article: HERE
I fear this article will be a rant. Sorry.
I am actually having trouble figuring out where to start. This is wrong on so many levels. I guess we'll start by asking some questions.
First question - How stupid is Colin Campbell to put this stuff in an email? He's close to 60 and doesn't understand one of the principal rules of email - If you don't want everybody to know it, don't put it in an email. If you aren't proud to write it, don't write it. If you need to get something off your chest, say it. Basically- don't give people proof that you're stupid, make them work for it.
Second Question - Why are we surprised? Stop with the blind faith. The NHL Disciplinary system under Colin Campbell is a "black box" - we see stuff go in, we see stuff come out, but we don't understand how the stuff that goes in becomes the stuff we see come out. We see the incident and then hear the ruling, but we don't know the process used to make the ruling. "Black boxes" are perfect for people who want ZERO transparency and want to make decisions based on criteria they aren't proud of. These emails are a peek into the "black box" and it appears to be very black indeed.
Third Question - How can Campbell now rule on any incident involving Marc Savard. The world now knows that Campbell has no respect for Savard, so every ruling by Campbell involving Savard has been and will now be tainted.
Fourth Question - If Campbell says this about Savard, who else does he say this about? Does he think the same about Sidney Crosby? Or how about Alex Ovechkin? Doug Weight? It appears that his decisions are influenced by the amount of "whining" that victims do. The black box looks blacker still.
Fifth Question - If all questions about his son's team is supposed to be handled by someone else, why was Campbell handling it? I know the answer to this one. He isn't allowed to, so it didn't happen. But the NHL is not refuting the emails, so it did happen. How could it have happened if it wasn't allowed to happen? Ah, that's right, it happened anyway. So he broke a conflict of interest rule. That's not too important. It only concerns the integrity of the game and the trust of the fans and business partners (i.e. advertisers). Never mind, I shouldn't have brought that up.
I fear this article will be a rant. Sorry.
I am actually having trouble figuring out where to start. This is wrong on so many levels. I guess we'll start by asking some questions.
First question - How stupid is Colin Campbell to put this stuff in an email? He's close to 60 and doesn't understand one of the principal rules of email - If you don't want everybody to know it, don't put it in an email. If you aren't proud to write it, don't write it. If you need to get something off your chest, say it. Basically- don't give people proof that you're stupid, make them work for it.
Second Question - Why are we surprised? Stop with the blind faith. The NHL Disciplinary system under Colin Campbell is a "black box" - we see stuff go in, we see stuff come out, but we don't understand how the stuff that goes in becomes the stuff we see come out. We see the incident and then hear the ruling, but we don't know the process used to make the ruling. "Black boxes" are perfect for people who want ZERO transparency and want to make decisions based on criteria they aren't proud of. These emails are a peek into the "black box" and it appears to be very black indeed.
Third Question - How can Campbell now rule on any incident involving Marc Savard. The world now knows that Campbell has no respect for Savard, so every ruling by Campbell involving Savard has been and will now be tainted.
Fourth Question - If Campbell says this about Savard, who else does he say this about? Does he think the same about Sidney Crosby? Or how about Alex Ovechkin? Doug Weight? It appears that his decisions are influenced by the amount of "whining" that victims do. The black box looks blacker still.
Fifth Question - If all questions about his son's team is supposed to be handled by someone else, why was Campbell handling it? I know the answer to this one. He isn't allowed to, so it didn't happen. But the NHL is not refuting the emails, so it did happen. How could it have happened if it wasn't allowed to happen? Ah, that's right, it happened anyway. So he broke a conflict of interest rule. That's not too important. It only concerns the integrity of the game and the trust of the fans and business partners (i.e. advertisers). Never mind, I shouldn't have brought that up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
