Underhill

[twh2]

Cheers to that!  I'm as much into thinking about playoff possibilities, Underhill's possible injury, PWR rankings and the NCAA tournament as the next crazed member of the Lynah faithful, but there's nothing wrong with stepping back from all that and realizing this year's team is the best we've seen in a long long time.  So here's to Undy, no matter what happens from here on out, for having one hell of a season in net and conducting himself with class every step of the way even though he might have bitched and moaned about having to split time with a Frosh as a Senior.  And I just love seeing that countdown to the playoffs get closer and closer to "0" across the board!  :-D

[jeh25]

KeithK '93 wrote:

As far as privacy is concerned, Schafer and/or Underhill have decided not to disclose details of the injury with the public.  That's their right, whether it be for reasons of privacy, strategy, whatever.  But we can still discuss it.  Now, if I had just spoken to Matt and he'd told me his condition but asked me to keep it quiet then I would be violating his privacy by blabbing on this forum (in an ethical sense at least).  But aside from that I figure it's fair ground to discuss (and I have never spoken to him).

But that is exactly what happened. Or at least the ethical equivalent. A well meaning post was made detailing information that was priviledged information between Matt and his healthcare provider. The post was then removed by the original author.

Jordan then asked if we should be discussing this information given that it conflicted with Coach's party line.  In trying to respond, I made a poorly worded post that read like a kooky alt.black-helicopters post when all I meant to do was reaffirm Matt's right to privacy.

KeithK '93 wrote:

On a different note (though related to screcy I guess), would Yale's preparation vary significantly depending on whether they thought Underhill or LeNeveu would be playing?

As Jordan mentioned, prepping for 2 goalies in harder than 1.  Of course, given the similarities in styles between Matt and David, who knows if this would have any meaningful effect. But still, why make it easier?


Greg Berge wrote:

Who knew we had such influence?  Gee, I figured we were just a bunch of fans with nothing else to do.  But it turns out we have an extremely important role to play.  ::rolleyes::

Get over yourself and enjoy the damn games.  Sheesh.

Although I don't think Greg was actually agreeing with me, this was exactly my point.  Our knowing more about Matt's injury does absolutely nothing for us. Nada. Nothing. Zip. We are fans, nothing more. Given that, isn't Matt's right to privacy and Coach's tactical decision not to release any information more important that our right to know?


<<>soapbox<>>
I don't mean to be all preachy about this this but the balance between privacy and security and the need for public disclosure is a touchy issue for me. With my only sister, her husband and a very close friend on active duty in the military, I was incensed when the Syracuse  newspaper reported that the 10th Mtn Div. was shipping out of Ft. Drum for Central Asia. Does Osama read the Post Standard? Not fricking likely, but still, why does the press in this country insist that we have a god given right to every little juicy detail, regardless of the potential cost.

When you couple this with the emphasis we have here at work with regard to NIH guidelines on confidentiality, I get really pissy really quickly whenever these sort of privacy issues are raised.
<<>/soapbox<>>

Am I saying Cornell hockey is as important as the war in central asia? Of course not. I just wish that, as a country, we would learn to take the 15 seconds to stop and ask ourselves "Do I really need to know?" or "Should this information really be publicized?"

Just some food for thought.

[gwm3]

Obviously if someone posted something here that they were told in confidence or had no right to know in the first place, that was a mistake.  If Matt and Schafer are trying to keep the details of an injury concealed for strategic reasons, that is their prerogative.  But I would have to disagree with some previous posters who seem to imply that Matt's injury is not a valid topic of conversation.  While most of us don't have our medical histories aired in public, athletes are in a different category.  Go to ESPN.com, and you will find pages and pages about what pro athletes are having what surgeries on what dates, etc.  Injuries are a part of sports, and I think it is perfectly legitimate for fans to discuss injuries that may affect their team.

[Keith K]

OK, I'd forgotten about the healthcare provider post.  I agree that that isn't a very cool thing to do.  However, imagine that the Ithaca Journal printed an article describing some details of a player's condition that the coach didn't want to officially publicize.  Would it be innappropriate for us to discuss it and our opinions about the duration/impact/whatever?  I don't think so.  The ethical issue is primarily for the one dispensing the information in the first place and for one who would spread unconfirmed rumor.  Thus I am glad the original poster deleted his post.  But ni the hypothetical newspaper case discussion would not be unwarranted.

John, I agree with you that we in this country sometimes go overboard in regards to wantnig to know every little detail.  The press sees it as a right, but much of it is attributable to the public's desire for this information (though there are certainly those in the press who would seek full disclosure on idealogical grounds regardless of public interest).  In the case of the military I fully support the idea of secrecy when necessary.  I'm not sure your example is a great one. I mean, if bin Laden's crew wanted to know which Army divisions were being sent out it wouldn't be that hard to find out.  There really aren't that many candidates and it's hard to hide the deployment of an army division - too many people involved outside of the military.  Yes, the newspaper may save them a little legwork but...

Regardnig my other question, what I really mean is do teams run practices and prepare themselves differently based on the opposing goalie.  Yes, different guys have different styles but is it more than just telling the team the day bfore the game "this guy tends to drop down" or "has a slow glove hand"?  John and Jordan say that two goalies is harder to prepare for than one.  Sounds reasonable but I'm looking for more details on how much so and why.

[Jordan 04]

John and Jordan say that two goalies is harder to prepare for than one. Sounds reasonable but I'm looking for more details on how much so and why.

To be fair to myself, I didn't exactly give a ringing endorsement for the troubles of preparing for 2 goalies.

Just stated the obvious that preparing for 2 is more than 1

[Greg Berge]

> Although I don't think Greg was actually agreeing with me, this was exactly my point.

Well, no, I was not agreeing with you.  I was making light of you, no worse or better than I hope I'd make light of myself if I voiced the same silly, alarmist sentiment.

I hope nothing said here makes any difference to anybody who does this for a living -- if it does, I fear for their job.

About 1% of everything I've ever read on hockey fora over the years is anything more than absurdity created from abject boredom.  Especially when people who honestly think they know what they are talking about opine in what they feel is an objective and intelligent manner, the odds are overwhelming that they are really talking complete crap, at best just to hear themselves yammer.

On an unrelated note, I hear Murray's right cross is weak, so in the post-season, I urge all Cornell opponents to approach him from the stick side, cross over, and easily drive him to the boards.  Works every time.  ;-)

[zg88]

> I hope nothing said here makes any difference to anybody who does this for a living -- if it does, I fear for their job.

Huh?!  You mean I coulda been getting PAID for all my posts?!  Dammit, why didn't you say so sooner?!  (And where can I get an application?)

[ugarte]

John E Hayes '98 '00 wrote:

But that is exactly what happened. Or at least the ethical equivalent. A well meaning post was made detailing information that was priviledged information between Matt and his healthcare provider. The post was then removed by the original author.

"Ethical equivalent"? It is only equivalent if the person got the information FROM the healthcare provider. Since the post is gone (and if it is the one I think it is, I don't remember any "I heard this from Matt's doctor . . .") I can't tell if the source of the information was improper.  If it was, I am glad it is gone.  I even think if someone realized that they were breaching a confidence and removed the information, that is reasonable.  

As a general matter, however, if the information came from Underhill, or someone who got it from Underhill, it isn't the ethical equivalent of anything. It is only as confidential as you make it, and if you are injudicious in who you share your medical information with it isn't a breach of anything when the person who gets the information third-hand (us) starts talking about it. Again, there are reliability issues, but not privacy issues.

As Jordan mentioned, prepping for 2 goalies in harder than 1.  Of course, given the similarities in styles between Matt and David, who knows if this would have any meaningful effect. But still, why make it easier?

How? They are goalies! They stand in front of the net and block shots. They both have sub-2 GAA. I don't get this at all.

Greg Berge wrote:

Our knowing more about Matt's injury does absolutely nothing for us. Nada. Nothing. Zip. We are fans, nothing more.

Nothing more? We are fans, and that is everything. We care about the bumps and bruises. We care about the microscopic effects a slightly overcooked egg for breakfast will have on a players mood throughout gameday. We care.  If Schafer and Underhill want to keep the information from me, so be it. But if I find it out (through legitimate means) I am damn well going to share it and discuss it. Right to privacy? He is, in a limited sense, a public figure. And the public part is "things that will effect how he and/or the team will play".

I was incensed when the Syracuse  newspaper reported that the 10th Mtn Div. was shipping out of Ft. Drum for Central Asia. Does Osama read the Post Standard?

"Oh crap," said Osama bin Laden upon hearing the news, "not Ft. Drum! I was hoping for a less gung ho group of soldiers!"

Again, I am mystified.  The President and numerous staff members went on television and announced that we were sending troops to Asia.  What, exactly, did the Post Standard do wrong?  It is legitimate news, and if the most specific the article got was "central Asia" I am fairly certain that no vital information was disclosed.

I think your prickliness regarding "privacy" issues is a bit exaggerated and really tightens the "need to know" standard in a way that restricts discourse and hamstrings the press.  I'd get off of my soapbox, but it was grafted to my feet during my childhood - I'm here all the time now.

[ugarte]

Sorry about the tags (and other errors in excerpting) on the previous post. I can't seem to edit it. (If, by the time you read this Age has been able to fix my mistake, thanks Age.)

[jeh25]

big red apple wrote:

John E Hayes '98 '00 wrote:

But that is exactly what happened. Or at least the ethical equivalent. A well meaning post was made detailing information that was priviledged information between Matt and his healthcare provider. The post was then removed by the original author.

"Ethical equivalent"? It is only equivalent if the person got the information FROM the healthcare provider. Since the post is gone (and if it is the one I think it is, I don't remember any "I heard this from Matt's doctor . . .") I can't tell if the source of the information was improper.  If it was, I am glad it is gone.  I even think if someone realized that they were breaching a confidence and removed the information, that is reasonable.  

The post in question stated "I heard from my friend that talked to Matt's nurse that ....." While this is 3rd hand information, it *did* in fact come from Matt's healthcare provider, not from Matt. I thought the post was well intentioned but that the author may not have fully considered the ethical issues so I emailed the person last night and said so. When I got up this morning, the original author had removed to the post. I guess you'll just need to trust me here that the info as posted didn't appear to come from Matt.  

big red apple wrote:

John E Hayes '98 '00 wrote:

As Jordan mentioned, prepping for 2 goalies in harder than 1.  Of course, given the similarities in styles between Matt and David, who knows if this would have any meaningful effect. But still, why make it easier?

How? They are goalies! They stand in front of the net and block shots. They both have sub-2 GAA. I don't get this at all.

[/QUOTE]

Different players have different weakness. Given limited time in practice, not knowing which goalie you will face will force you split time prepping for both.  Your comment however, completely ignores the fact that I conceded that this may not actually matter with Matt and David given their similar styles.

big red apple wrote:

Nothing more? We are fans, and that is everything. We care about the bumps and bruises. We care about the microscopic effects a slightly overcooked egg for breakfast will have on a players mood throughout gameday. We care.  If Schafer and Underhill want to keep the information from me, so be it. But if I find it out (through legitimate means) I am damn well going to share it and discuss it. Right to privacy? He is, in a limited sense, a public figure. And the public part is "things that will effect how he and/or the team will play".

I absolutely agree 100% that injuries to athletes are fair game for discussion. However, the information in question wasn't obtained through what you term "legitimate means." Moreover, in my original post, I was simply answering Jordan's question, which was whether or not it was appropriate to use the forum to disseminate information that contradicts what Mike has said in the press.  I said that I didn't think so. This is a decision that each person needs to make for themselves.

For me personally, if I had a piece of information that I knew Matt wanted kept quiet, I wouldn't feel right sharing it here, regardless of how I learned about it.

big red apple wrote:

John E Hayes '98 '00 wrote:

I was incensed when the Syracuse  newspaper reported that the 10th Mtn Div. was shipping out of Ft. Drum for Central Asia. Does Osama read the Post Standard?

"Oh crap," said Osama bin Laden upon hearing the news, "not Ft. Drum! I was hoping for a less gung ho group of soldiers!"

Knowing the type of forces deployed gives a great deal of insight as to the type of mission they will be undertaking. A Light Infantry Div. like the 10th is suited for different roles than something like the 2nd Armored Cav.

But anyway, this is besides the point.  I was giving this example in an attempt to illustrate that we seem to have lost the ability to step back and ask the important question of whether or not the benefit of disclosing a piece of information outweigh the potential consquences of such a disclosure.  


big red apple wrote:

I think your prickliness regarding "privacy" issues is a bit exaggerated and really tightens the "need to know" standard in a way that restricts discourse and hamstrings the press.

Perhaps. I guess in this area, I'm inclined to err on the side of discretion.

[ugarte]

John E Hayes '98 '00 wrote:

The post in question stated "I heard from my friend that talked to Matt's nurse that ....."

Matt's nurse really should shut the @#*& up (if, in fact, the nurse was the source of the information).   S/he should be disciplined by the hospital/doctor that s/he works for her(his) indiscretion.

The rest of the post doesn't need any more response from me. I think each of us knows where the other stands. (Except to note that if the DOD didn't want the Syracuse paper to report that the infantry was going to Central Asia, they would have prevented it.)

[Cornellian]

I just wanted to answer the 2 vs. 1 goalie prep time from the standpoint of an actual hockey player. While there are certainly a ton of tapes out there from games this year, you will find that most teams spend little time on "goalie prep."

Figuring your way around a defense is more important than figuring your way around the goalie. If this were a shootout to determine who moved on, maybe, but the fact of the matter is most guys just try to put the puck where the goalie ain't. Yes, some guys go down quicker/slower, tend to be better/worse at playing the puck behind the boards or stray just a smidge too high/too low in the crease, but most of what you need to know about a goalie can be explained in a few short sentences.

I'm a goalie, so here's an example: "Go five hole on a break away." There you have it. That's all you need to know that makes me different from anyone else. Now just don't spread that.

BTW... that said, I defend the press but don't want private medical info (i.e. not speculation, but someone actually knowing something) posted anywhere. As far as the army movement, i don't think it really matters that we say they're leaving, and most in Syracuse would be happy to have heard that it happened (from a knowledge standpoint). Now if we posted exact movements while in Afghanistan, that's a different story.

Here's to hoping Undy's ok.

[CowbellGuy]

And at what point did a bunch of college kids become pro athletes? It's not like they're being paid millions of dollars to justify having their private lives publicly divulged. You all need to get over yourselves.
I know several of you make it a point to never get to know any of the players as you prefer they remain faceless entities on the ice that you can speculate on, criticize, and elevate guilt-free. Try and respect the facts that a) they are still just college students at last check, b) not only are they not professionals, but they probably turned down significant scholarships from other schools to come here, and c) if the team doesn't want medical information released, it's not to frustrate you holier-than-though-right-to-know-above-all-else freaks, but for an actual reason.

[ugarte]

Sorry, Age, but - blah blah blah.  

I don't think the pro/amateur distinction is as significant as you do, and I think the scholarship/non-scholarship distinction is irrelevant.  They do somthing public. They know that because they play hockey, strangers care about their lives. Did I steal his medical chart? No. If someone else has information that has come from a legitimate source, is it fair game for discussion? Yes.  If I don't know where the information came from, is it off-limits until it has been sourced properly? Of course not. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is damn hard to stuff it back.

And "holier-than-thou"? Judge not, etc.  Yours is as self-righteous a post as anything I've put together. It isn't about a "right to know" but about what is reasonable public discourse when the facts are out or reasonable speculation when they are unconfirmed. If the coach and the player want it kept a secret, they should keep it secret. Once it is in the open I don't see why blinders are in order.

I really have to stay away from this thread.

[CUlater \'89]

Whether they are professional athletes or not is irrelevant to whether we are entitled to discuss or speculate about injuries that might affect their ability to play at 100% or at all.

The information to which this thread relates is now available to the general public, possibly thanks to someone's breach of medical ethics, but nevertheless, it is available.  We the fans have no signed any sort of confidentiality agreement in which we agree not to discuss information if we knew that it had been disclosed in violation of someone's right to doctor-patient confidentiality.  We are free to speculate and discuss based on any information we have (or, as is often the case, no information at all).

There is a strong argument that by playing on the hockey team, these students have become public figures and so are no entitled to any expectation of privacy, but regardless of how one feels on that point, I don't see how anyone could reasonably believe it is not acceptable to discuss an injury or possible injury that might affect on-ice performance.

I think that people who feel "close" to the players (justifiably or not) probably have their judgment impaired on this point.  I know that a few years after I graduated, when one of the players sublet my apartment in Boston during one summer, I was very defensive when anyone criticized him (fortunately that didn't happen often as he had a great season the following year before turning pro).  My judgment was skewed because I had more of a relationship with him than just another fan or hockey booster.

But what you have to recognize is that the mere fact that they play for free, without scholarships, doesn't mean they are no subject to public discussion of injuries, play on the ice or even more personal things.  Yes, you might feel differently because your judgment is skewed due to some sort of "personal" relationship, but trust me, it's no different for friends and family of professional athletes.  No one likes it, but it's part of the deal, whethe you play for pay or not.