Rebecca Johnston - Cornell Hero

[Jim Hyla]

Wow, even Roy Williams (the UNC coach) thinks this is an over-exaggeration. You're seriously trying to compare the US men's hockey team trashing a hotel room because they were sore losers to a couple of girls celebrating a gold medal? There was no property damage, no injuries, just hockey players having fun. I guess this is a generational gap thing because what the girls did is one of the coolest things ever. They just won a gold medal in their home country - they have every right to go batshit insane. Ugarte summed it up perfectly.

I wasn't comparing them, that's why I said "While this was not as bad". I was just pointing out that celebrations can get out of hand.

As to whether they have every right, that's not up to us to say, as we don't employ them.

Here's the thing, Jim: They didn't do anything wrong. AT ALL. Not "what they did wasn't a big deal" or "other people have done worse": They did nothing wrong. After a win, they went back into an EMPTY arena and had a bit of fun. Zeroing in on the incredibly minor drinking age violation - a difference of Provincial law, not "morals" - says a lot more about the "zeroer" [sic] than it does about her. This controversy is almost as stupid as Scotty Lago getting sent home for partying at a club with his medal on. And only because there haven't actually been any repercussions yet. As soon as there are, this zooms straight to the gold in the fake-controversy Olympics.

The Olympics has a disproportionate sense of its own solemnity. There is no reason that the rest of the world has to jump on board. Casting ANY blame on the women of the Canadian hockey team buys into that bullshit.

I can't believe I came back to this thread. And I can't believe that I probably will again.

Whether they did anything wrong is not for us to say, we don't employ them. When Michael Phelps smoked pot I didn't think he did anything wrong, but his employers did. Tiger didn't do anything wrong, legally as far as we know, but his employers did. So they have a right to do what's in the contract; I don't know what is in there, neither do any of the rest of you.

Come back under threat of .::deadhorse::

If their "terms of employment" said anything, it was "Don't do anything embarrassing, a term that we will define unilaterally and arbitrarily at some time in the future." Good luck living under that regime because it apparently includes "being too happy."

The COC - and other Helen Lovejoy's - don't need defending. The victims of their outlandish moralizing do. You may think you are taking a neutral position - that the employer chooses the terms of employment - but the position you are taking is that all such terms are equally worthy of respect when exercised. Do you sincerely believe that anything these women did violated any rational "job requirement"? If not, please stop defending the IOC/COC. If you do, stop hiding behind the employer's prerogative so that you may be properly mocked.

If you wish, start mocking; it won't bother me.

If you look back at my posts, about the worst I said they did was stupid and poor form. If their contract said don't, so be it. Now if you want to enlarge that to the thought that I think anything that an employer wants is OK, well then you don't know me well. So start mocking, I'm ready for it.

[billhoward]

Almost 50 posts and nobody used "cigar" and "Freud" in the same post. That's maturity of a sort.

[Rosey]

Cornell told me to not throw candy at Lynah. I think they are wrong, but I don't do it.

You are comparing the two scenarios at different points: a better comparison would be between your throwing candy at Lynah prior to their asking you to stop and the girls celebrating with stogies and champagne on the ice, presumably prior to anyone telling them not to do it.  I suspect both are much less likely now that attention is being paid to it.

But the issue for me is a whole lot simpler: in both cases I think there are just too many people with sticks up their asses complaining about something that is harmless fun.  These people are known as "killjoys" and should just STFU and either appreciate the fun or get out of the way.

[RichH]

Almost 50 posts and nobody used "cigar" and "Freud" in the same post. That's maturity of a sort.

Well, when tretiak mentioned Brandi Chastain, I thought about sports-bras and giggled.  Does that help?

Also, Molson & Coors are the same company today.

[Jim Hyla]

Cornell told me to not throw candy at Lynah. I think they are wrong, but I don't do it.

You are comparing the two scenarios at different points: a better comparison would be between your throwing candy at Lynah prior to their asking you to stop and the girls celebrating with stogies and champagne on the ice, presumably prior to anyone telling them not to do it.  I suspect both are much less likely now that attention is being paid to it.

But the issue for me is a whole lot simpler: in both cases I think there are just too many people with sticks up their asses complaining about something that is harmless fun.  These people are known as "killjoys" and should just STFU and either appreciate the fun or get out of the way.

That's my point, they probably have been told some ideas about behavior, none of us knows what. If they were told before, and after other incidents in Olympics I'm assuming something has been said, then they are similar.

As I said about Phelps, I don't think any of these things were terrible, but when you accept the big time, and you're getting paid, then some things are expected. But again I think I'm ::deadhorse:: and none of you are apt to change your opinion.

[Tom Lento]

The IOC is "investigating" and presumably they investigate all complaints about unseemly behavior by athletes - that's part of their responsibility.

That said, I wonder how much negative press this is getting in Canada. I'm guessing little to none, and here's why - after she got bounced from medal position in her last race, Julia Mancuso popped a champagne bottle *on the slopes* in front of the crowd and started drinking and sharing it with friends. Where's the outrage? Why isn't this being investigated? Why isn't the media making a big deal of it? I mean, it was on NBC (in HD!), on the tape-delayed broadcast no less, so there's definitely footage.

If the story here was a one-liner of the form "the team celebrated but one of the players was underage according to BC law so the IOC is investigating" then I don't think we'd be having this huge discussion, and I'm guessing that's the main story outside of the US. But with our sensationalist media and our collective puritanical and inconsistently applied standards for behavior, this story gets blown out of proportion. Now it's not about a simple violation of drinking laws, which is really the only story here, it's about standards of decorum and the relative evils of stogies (*gasp*) and beer (*the horror*) on the ice (*OMGWTFBBQ*).

They won a freaking gold medal. Was the celebration the height of class and decorum? No, but it wasn't crass and boorish either. They didn't destroy anything, they didn't hurt anyone, they didn't rub the US team's collective faces in the outcome. It was a bunch of happy women celebrating something they worked for years to achieve. The fact that there's no depth in Olympic women's hockey doesn't diminish their effort or make a celebration of their accomplishment unreasonable - remember, a silver medal would have been a failure and bronze would have been a disaster, and the US team didn't reach the finals in Torino so the earlier games weren't guaranteed to be a formality.

It's the typical media tempest in a teapot. Nobody will care about this next week, at worst the IOC will wag its finger at the Canadian women and next time they'll keep it in the locker room. Meh. I think the only thing anybody should be getting worked up about is just how bad our media has gotten, but I think I'm mostly numb to that by now.

[ugarte]

... and next time they'll keep it in the locker room. ...

And we'll be the worse for it. It was a fun moment, one I'm glad that someone documented.

[Jim Hyla]

The IOC is "investigating" and presumably they investigate all complaints about unseemly behavior by athletes - that's part of their responsibility.

That said, I wonder how much negative press this is getting in Canada. I'm guessing little to none, and here's why - after she got bounced from medal position in her last race, Julia Mancuso popped a champagne bottle *on the slopes* in front of the crowd and started drinking and sharing it with friends. Where's the outrage? Why isn't this being investigated? Why isn't the media making a big deal of it? I mean, it was on NBC (in HD!), on the tape-delayed broadcast no less, so there's definitely footage.

If the story here was a one-liner of the form "the team celebrated but one of the players was underage according to BC law so the IOC is investigating" then I don't think we'd be having this huge discussion, and I'm guessing that's the main story outside of the US. But with our sensationalist media and our collective puritanical and inconsistently applied standards for behavior, this story gets blown out of proportion. Now it's not about a simple violation of drinking laws, which is really the only story here, it's about standards of decorum and the relative evils of stogies (*gasp*) and beer (*the horror*) on the ice (*OMGWTFBBQ*).

They won a freaking gold medal. Was the celebration the height of class and decorum? No, but it wasn't crass and boorish either. They didn't destroy anything, they didn't hurt anyone, they didn't rub the US team's collective faces in the outcome. It was a bunch of happy women celebrating something they worked for years to achieve. The fact that there's no depth in Olympic women's hockey doesn't diminish their effort or make a celebration of their accomplishment unreasonable - remember, a silver medal would have been a failure and bronze would have been a disaster, and the US team didn't reach the finals in Torino so the earlier games weren't guaranteed to be a formality.

It's the typical media tempest in a teapot. Nobody will care about this next week, at worst the IOC will wag its finger at the Canadian women and next time they'll keep it in the locker room. Meh. I think the only thing anybody should be getting worked up about is just how bad our media has gotten, but I think I'm mostly numb to that by now.

Well, here's the CTV discussion of the IOC "investigation". It doesn't exist. Their headline is

IOC won't investigate women's hockey celebration.

The IOC spokesman clearly says the US press is at fault;-)

"because the scrutiny isn't coming from the IOC, the scrutiny is coming from most or all of the front pages of all of the Canadian press and television," he said.

It's funny what you can find with a little work.=]

[billhoward]

Even horses' asses sometimes recognize themselves in the mirror and the IOC is backpedaling quickly, saying only that they're asking for further details. The media helped the IOC recognize there are things that are worse problems in Vancouver, starting with a luge track that killed a competitor, and they approved the plans for it.

[billhoward]

Leno or Letterman or Conan should get a one-liner out of it. It kind of writes itself. Half the humor is watching the host's eyebrows.

[phillysportsfan]

Leno or Letterman or Conan should get a one-liner out of it. It kind of writes itself. Half the humor is watching the host's eyebrows.

Reminds me of a Kramer line from Seinfeld when he is imitating Jerry and Jerry asks what is the punch line, Kramer says something like its all in the attitude or expression

[Tom Lento]

Thanks Jim. All that proves to me is the Canadian media is just as dumb as ours.

Edit - Actually, after reading some of the coverage I stand by the entirety of my original statement. The IOC announced an investigation and then backed off, which seems reasonable - investigating when necessary and backing off when there's nothing worth investigating is what they're supposed to do. The coverage I've seen from the US media has ranged from neutral to highly negative. The coverage from the Canadian media was mostly neutral (although admittedly I only scanned a few articles), and apparently actual Canadians were pretty supportive of their women's hockey team during the whole thing. http://www.torontosun.com/sports/vancouver2010/hockey/2010/02/26/13037636.html

The jury's still out on whether or not the Canadian media is as dumb as ours, but I'm guessing it's close but no cigar. Or Zamboni rides. Ack ack.

[billhoward]

If the Canadian media is dumping on Team Canada, it's a national inferiority complex that is unnecessary. So the luge run killed a person, one of the flame pillars didn't go erect, and there was an ugly chain link fence around the outdoor flame. The Olympics have been great once they trucked in snow, Canada has done well in the medals department, and Vancouver is a world-class city we should have stolen in the 1800s rather than mess around trying to nip away a bit of Cuba. I think Vancouver should run more ads showing the 14-year-old hookers and homeless and say, 'The Real Vancouver. Go Someplace Else. [Meanwhile, We're Keeping the Good Parts to Ourselves.' Sort of a Don't Californicate Oregon campaign.

[Swampy]

If the Canadian media is dumping on Team Canada, it's a national inferiority complex that is unnecessary. So the luge run killed a person, one of the flame pillars didn't go erect, and there was an ugly chain link fence around the outdoor flame. The Olympics have been great once they trucked in snow, Canada has done well in the medals department, and Vancouver is a world-class city we should have stolen in the 1800s rather than mess around trying to nip away a bit of Cuba. I think Vancouver should run more ads showing the 14-year-old hookers and homeless and say, 'The Real Vancouver. Go Someplace Else. [Meanwhile, We're Keeping the Good Parts to Ourselves.' Sort of a Don't Californicate Oregon campaign.

Bill,

You have to put these things in historical context. Vancouver was hardly a world-class city in the 1800s. It was incorporated only in 1886 and had a population of around 20,000 by 1900. In contrast, Havana had been the major transhipment point for Spanish gold and silver stolen from the Americas and was one of the richest cities in the New World for much of that time. None other than Ben Franklin had proposed annexing Cuba, and we warned Bolivar to stay away. (Before the Civil War, it was better to have a Spanish colony than another independent country run by freed former slaves.) On the other hand, we seemed to give up on Canada after the War of 1812. Cuba was a country of blacks and Hispanics, and our tradition since the Monroe Doctrine, the Mexican war, and Good Neighbor policy has always held non-Anglos in a special place ::pain:: After we figured out there was no Northwest Passage, Canada was just another forest with too many people named Gordon or McKenzie. If you were Meyer Lanski looking for a place to build your casino and run your prostitution, where would you choose: some banana republic with a two-bit dictator where the climate is wonderful except during hurricane season, the people impoverished, and labor is therefore cheap, or some god-forsaken place in the Pacific Northwest, reachable only by a 4-day train trip from NY, the weather often rainy or overcast, and where everyone stops at 4 for tea? After 1959, Cuba became the official U.S. boogie man (before Lee Atwater). How else could we so easily prove that Socialism causes poverty? Surely not by pointing to Canada! Since most U.S. citizens never visited Haiti, never got out of their hotels in Jamaica, and never went outside Havana before 1959, post-1959 Cuba is perfect proof of the natural superiority of the capitalist system. It would therefore be logically inconsistent if we didn't want to bring the benefits of capitalism to Cuba (and the benefits of Cuba to capitalism) by annexing it. (Or "transitioning" as in the latest euphemism.) Canada, on the other hand, would just be a big pain in the ::moon::. Imagine the confusion if we told the Canadians they now had the benefits of the best health care system in the world instead of their current socialist system. (Or imagine telling this to the Cubans, for that matter, but they're not white, so people here wouldn't take them seriously.) There's hardly any comparison!

[Al DeFlorio]

You have to put these things in historical context. Vancouver was hardly a world-class city in the 1800s. It was incorporated only in 1886 and had a population of around 20,000 by 1900.

Vancouver might still be a backwater if Charles Melville Hays, General Manager of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, hadn't gone down with the Titanic along with his plans to make Prince Rupert--Grand Trunk's western terminus--the primary Canadian port for shipping to and from the far east.