The Buch stops here

International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge told the Associated Press yesterday he doesn’t want to see a boycott of this summer’s Beijing Olympics despite China’s recent crackdown on Tibetan protestors, which Tibet’s self-proclaimed government-in-exile estimated to have killed at least 80 people thus far. Rogge, who’s on a six-day tour of the Caribbean instead of consulting with the Chinese government, apparently “expressed condolences for the victims and said he hopes calm will be restored immediately,” but declined to comment on the situation beyond a brief statement against boycotts.

Rogge’s probably right to stand against boycotts. The Olympics have been boycotted for all manner of reasons over the years. 28 African nations skipped the 1976 Montreal Olympics because New Zealand was allowed to participate despite their rugby team playing an event in South Africa that reinforced the apartheid regime, 64 countries stayed out of the 1980 Moscow Olympics due to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and 14 Eastern Bloc countries refused to travel to Los Angeles for the 1984 Summer Olympics in retaliation. Boycotts aren’t a viable solution, though: all they accomplish is to make the Olympics more political than they already are, and they raise serious questions about whether the medal-winners were truly better than those forced to stay at home by their governments.

Rogge’s lack of comment on the Tibet situation is disturbing, though, and it serves as further evidence that he doesn’t really see China’s atrocious human rights record as a problem. The real issue here is why the Olympics were awarded to China in the first place. Over the years, there have been many Olympics held in countries under problematic regimes with spotty human rights records, such as the 1936 Summer Olympics in Nazi Germany, the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico (preceded by security forces killing hundreds of protesting students), the 1980 Summer Olympics in the USSR and the 1984 Winter Olympics in Yugoslavia. The IOC’s prevailing rhetoric has always been similar to Rogge’s claim to Reuters last August that the Olympics will be “a force for good,” which he’s been repeating frequently since. These changes have rarely materialized, though: in fact, the 1936 Olympics in particular were seen by Hitler’s regime as a great propaganda success. Groups such as the American-Israeli Co-operative Enterprise have even linked the lack of protests during the Berlin Olympics to Hitler’s subsequent increased aggression towards Jews and foreign powers.

“For two weeks in August 1936, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi dictatorship camouflaged its racist, militaristic character while hosting the Summer Olympics,” their website states. “Soft-pedaling its antisemitic agenda and plans for territorial expansion, the regime exploited the Games to bedazzle many foreign spectators and journalists with an image of a peaceful, tolerant Germany. Having rejected a proposed boycott of the 1936 Olympics, the United States and other western democracies missed the opportunity to take a stand that—some observers at the time claimed—might have given Hitler pause and bolstered international resistance to Nazi tyranny. With the conclusion of the Games, Germany’s expansionist policies and the persecution of Jews and other “enemies of the state” accelerated, culminating in World War II and the Holocaust.”

The point is a valuable one. It’s unclear what difference, if any, stronger protests at the Berlin Games would have made, but the Games as they unfolded certainly didn’t hurt Hitler’s cause or reputation. Today, the defining image of those games remains African-American athlete Jesse Owens besting the Aryan supermen, but as heroic as that was, it didn’t seem to make much of an impact at the time. It definitely didn’t change the views of Hitler and the Nazis on racial superiority, and it didn’t even do much for black athletes in the United States: the NFL was segregated until 1945, Major League Baseball remained segregated until 1947, and the NBA didn’t integrate until 1950.

Rogge’s inaction here illustrates the contradiction in his statements. On the one hand, he has said multiple times the Olympics were given to China to be “a force for good,” but on the other hand, he told the Associated Press in February that the IOC “is a sporting, non-political organization and we cannot solve the problems of the world.” He can’t have his cake and eat it too: either the Olympics are political (which they’ve proven to be over the years) and he should back up his words with some lobbying to actually make the Games change things for the better, or they’re purely non-political, in which case China should never have been awarded the Olympics in the first place. It’s hard to rationalize a “non-political” movement acting as a political “force for good”.

On-field performances are great, but it’s the political statements associated with them that really matter: consider the black-gloved salute of American sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos after the 200-metre race in Mexico City, which remains one of the defining sporting images of our time and did great things for the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. Without Smith and Carlos taking that bold stand on the platform provided by their athletic achievements, they would have quickly faded into obscurity as merely talented sprinters. Unfortunately, as Duke University professor Orin Starn lamented in a March 3 opinion piece for the , it seems “the era of the activist athlete is over.” As Starn later wrote on Duke’s website, “It would be nice to see more sports stars try to wield their immense influence in positive ways. Now it’s too often just about winning and getting your face on a Wheaties box.”

We’ll have to see what happens this summer, but it’s certainly not looking promising. These Olympics have already been marred by accusations of the Chinese government harvesting organs from Falun Gong practioners, clamping down on Tibet, evicting many of their own citizens to make way for Olympic construction and funding genocide in Darfur, but Rogge and the IOC are content to spin off platitudes about the Olympics being a force for good without providing the lobbying or political pressure to actually bring about change. China’s desperate to look good on the world stage at these Olympics, and the time is ripe to use the leverage of the Games to bring about some meaningful change. So far, Rogge and company have been unwilling to step up to the plate and call the Chinese government out, though, preferring instead to fiddle around on tours in the Caribbean. Maybe Starn is wrong, and the era of the activist athlete isn’t over. Hollywood director Steven Spielberg has led the way, pulling out of his role as a consultant on the opening ceremonies due to concerns about the government’s involvement in Darfur. It’s now up to the athletes to use the platform the Olympics gives them, as the IOC has spectacularly failed to make use of it thus far. Boycotts aren’t necessary, but taking a stand would be greatly appreciated. As Smith and Carlos showed, sometimes you don’t even need to say anything.

Related: My previous writings on the Olympics.

Playoff prediction wrap-up: I went 7-2, with the only mistakes being a prediction of a first-round win for women’s basketball (they lost to Carleton) and a OUA finals win for men’s volleyball (they lost to McMaster)

Earlier this week, Randy Starkman of the Toronto Star did a great two-part feature on concussions in hockey. He conducted in-depth interviews with experts, doctors, current and former National Hockey League players and league personnel, and even spoke with some minor hockey players whose lives have been affected by concussions. The majority of those he talked to recognized the severity and the danger posed by these injuries and had some great perspectives on it. The voice of one man stood out, though, both for his comments and for his position.

Colin Campbell, the NHL’s executive vice-president and director of hockey operations (who is also responsible for dealing out suspensions), said he thought many concussion victims were faking it. The Star’s research found that at least 30 NHL players had their careers ended in some major part due to concussions, but Campbell said this number was inflated.

“Some are legitimate,” Campbell told the Star. “I think some you might find aren’t legitimate. … I think there’s a small percentage, not a great percentage, of players who use it as an excuse, `Oh yeah, I’ve got a concussion.’ They can milk it. It’s a hard thing to really say that you haven’t, you know, if you’re trying to get some extra insurance money out of it to get paid an extra year or something.”

Campbell also said outlawing hits to the head, a step the Ontario Hockey League has taken, isn’t going to solve the problem. He told Starkman that banning head hits would result in more players skating with their heads down, making them more vulnerable. In fact, he went so far as to defend the league’s lack of action on head shots. “That’s just part of our game,” he told the Star. “The F1 (Formula One auto racing ) – I’m not talking death in our business – but the F1 with a death, do they put restraints on the car so they can only go 110?”

Having a league executive in such a position of power take these Neanderthal positions on serious injury issues is truly troubling for the NHL. In fact, 30 players is probably on the low side, as many concussions go undiagnosed and untreated. Even when concussions are diagnosed, the internationally-recognized full treatment plan for athletes’ return to play is rarely followed. Players are supposed to start with complete rest, then slowly work themselves up to light activities such as running before participating in non-contact, and then contact, practices. If symptoms recur at any level, the player is supposed to return to the previous level. As Keith Primeau said in Starkman’s article, many players return before they should, especially if it’s the playoffs. “Guys aren’t going to think long-term,” Primeau said. “We never do.”

Primeau speaks from personal experience there. He was stretchered off the ice in the decisive game of Philadelphia’s 2000 playoff series with Pittsburgh, but returned to the line-up before the first game of the team’s next series, which he told the Star was “the most erroneous decision I ever made.”

Stories like Primeau’s are dominant in hockey. Famous players like Stu Grimson, who also was forced to retire because of repeated concussions, have admitted they frequently returned to the ice before they should have and played through concussions. It’s cases like these that prove Campbell doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about when it comes to these injuries. NHL players are a hardy bunch, perhaps too hardy for their own good. They aren’t going to retire because of a faked concussion.

Concussions have taken a massive toll on everyone from greats such as Eric Lindros, Scott Stevens and Adam Deadmarsh to role players like Jeff Beukeboom and Matthew Barnaby. Some, such as Paul Comrie and Jesse Wallin, played less than 100 NHL games before concussions forced them out. Others, such as Pittsburgh Penguins draft pick Mark Moore, had to quit playing hockey before they even made it to the NHL. Even leaving the game doesn’t mean that the injury’s effects are left behind. As Starkman reported, concussions drastically altered the behaviour of players like Kevin Kaminski, making family life extremely difficult.

There’s also a body of scientific research showing that concussions have long-term dangers. As Starkman wrote, “A University of North Carolina study reported in 2005 that retired National Football League players faced a 37 per cent higher risk of Alzheimer’s than similarly aged U.S. males. It also found repeated concussions significantly raised the chance they’d suffer dementias such as mild cognitive impairment later in life.” Grimson told Starkman he thinks similar numbers would appear in a study focusing on hockey players, but the NHL denied the UNC group’s request to conduct a similar study. Also, a study of frequently-concussed former NFL safety Andre Waters’ brain tissue after his 2006 suicide at the age of 44 revealed that his brain tissue was equivalent to that of an 85-year old man and showed early signs of Alzheimer’s.

Fortunately, the Players’ Association seems to be taking a new interest in the problem, perhaps motivated by the recent appointment of Lindros as their ombudsman. Unfortunately, the league still seems to be stuck in the Dark Ages. Starkman reported that many coaches, including the Boston Bruins’ Claude Julien, have frequently either denied that their players were concussed or shrugged their injuries off as minor. A scathing indictment of the league’s policies came from former Ottawa Senators’ team doctor Jamie Kissick. “A friend of mine who was a team doctor on one of the other NHL teams said, `Well, we don’t have any concussions,’” Kissick told the Star. “He said this facetiously because the coach didn’t believe in them, so there were no concussions.”

The comments and actions of Campbell and the NHL show that they still don’t take concussions seriously. Perhaps Campbell, who played for the Vancouver Canucks in the 1980s, should realize that the game has changed since his era. Players are bigger, faster and stronger than ever before, and the hits are harder. As Grimson said to Starkman, “[m]y generation of athletes will be the ones to more accurately tell the tale of what the effects are later in life for somebody that suffers significant head trauma or even insignificant but repeated head trauma.”

The science of understanding and preventing concussions is progressing by leaps and bounds. Campbell and the NHL should take their heads out of the sand and jump on board, allowing researchers full access and making sure that players, coaches and team medical staff all understand the severe nature of this problem. Banning head-hunting, which is far too frequent in today’s NHL, would also be a big step forward. I don’t want to see hitting removed from the game, but the OHL’s ban on any kind of head shot has proved that you can still play good physical hockey without ending the careers of others.

The Philadelphia Flyers have been doling out a lot of punishment over the course of the NHL season thus far. First, Steve Downie, a player with a history of violence so long that he’ll undoubtedly be played by Viggo Mortensen in any biopic, jumped up to hit concussion-prone Ottawa Senators’ forward Dean McAmmond. For his trouble, Downie wound up with a 20-game suspension and McAmmond received another concussion. The Flyers then pulled an incredibly classy move, trying to evade the suspension by reassigning Downie to their AHL affiliate. Fortunately, they weren’t able to pull the wool over either league’s eyes, and the AHL reciprocated the suspension.

Earlier this month, the pattern continued when Jesse Boulerice cross-checked Vancouver Canucks’ forward Ryan Kesler across the face with his stick. Kesler was fortunate to escape without serious injury. For his actions, Boulerice was suspended for 25 games, the longest-single season ban in NHL history. Kesler told the Vancouver Province that Boulerice deserved more punishment than Downie for his actions.

“Downie’s was a hockey play, but a dirty hockey play,” Kesler said. “Crosschecking someone to the face isn’t a hockey play—it’s someone taking advantage of someone not being aware of a guy blindsiding him. … He could have possibly ended my season. Luckily, he broke his stick because he could have broken my jaw. He deserves whatever he gets.”

Kesler’s right, here: a dirty hit is a dirty hit, but is only slightly over the line that differentiates finishing checks from taking players out. Swinging a stick at someone’s face, on the other hand, doesn’t even come close to justifiable as a part of hockey. Thus the league was right to hand out the longer ban to Boulerice. Perhaps both punishments should have been more severe, though, as later events demonstrated the Flyers’ attitude was unchanged.

The latest event in the sad saga was Randy Jones’ hit from behind that concussed Patrice Bergeron. It wasn’t as bad as the preceding two acts: if the plays by Downie and Boulerice represent the highest level of dirty hockey, then Jones’ hit would be off toiling for the Belfast Giants à la Theoren Fleury. However, it was still a hit from behind, and more troublingly, the third in short succession from the same franchise. With this in mind, NHL discipline czar Colin Campbell handed Jones a two-game suspension.

What these plays collectively demonstrate is the return to character of the Flyers, historically one of the roughest teams in the NHL. In fact, their only Stanley Cup wins came in 1975 and 1976, where they were appropriately known as the “Broad Street Bullies”. Those teams featured such stellar characters as Bobby Clarke, famous for the slash right out of a mob drama that broke Soviet star Valery Kharlamov’s ankle back in the Canada-Russia 1972 Summit Series, Dave “The Hammer” Schultz, who established a single-season penalty-minute record that still stands today, and Ed Van Impe, whose brutal cross-check on Kharlamov in a 1976 exhibition game caused the whole Soviet team to retreat to their dressing room in protest.

It’s no shocker that the Flyers have stuck with the same institutional philosophy of smashing their way through the NHL, particularly considering that Clarke was the general manager of the franchise for 19 years and is currently the senior vice-president of the team. In fact, the mafioso nature of the Downie and Boulerice incidents, clearly designed to knock a specific opponent out of the game, suggests that they were attempting to emulate their vice-president as best as they could.

The way I see it, rough play itself is not the problem. There have been plenty of teams that have excelled both with skill and grit, such as the 1982 Vancouver Canucks (which incidentally, Colin “Soupy” Campbell was a member of), the 2004 Calgary Flames and the 2007 Anaheim Ducks, who led the league in fighting majors on their way to claiming the Stanley Cup. However, all of those teams largely stayed within the bounds of what is acceptable in the game of hockey: they finished their checks, they took their penalties, but they didn’t set out to knock opponents out of the game in the fashion that Clarke demonstrated back in his playing career, which Downie and Boulerice have now adopted.

The troubling aspect is when an organization’s entire philosophy—in everything from drafting players to signing free agents and developing coaching systems— is devoted to battering their way through the league by any means necessary. Three incidents in less than two months (and incidentally, the only three suspensions handed down to players in that period) is far too many for any franchise, particularly when the first two are of the particularly macabre grade of the Downie and Boulerice hits. If the Flyers do anything else to cross the line this year, the league office should come down on them as heavily as a Dave Schultz hammer punch.