I think the anti-Bertuzzi coverage in the Toronto-based papers, especially the Globe and the Star, also worked to Bertuzzi's and the Canucks' pr advantage. Here the focus was bashing Bertuzzi's hometown of Sudbury, and making crass statements about Bertuzzi's "blue collar" hockey vs. Moore's "white collar" variety. I found this particular angle so offensive it made me side with Bertuzzi, and forget my initial disgust over the hit.

Chris, i'm sorry but your statements are arrogant and offensive. being a sports fan does not mean that one is "mentally bored" as you so put it. i admit, i'm a huge hockey fan - i watch it on television and i play it twice a week, and i do not think that i'm disenfranchised. Consider following sport as a spectator a hobby. Sure, some people take the sports fan persona a little too far, but if people want to be "die hards", so be it. It's not for you and it's not for me. Now to switch gears, do sport personalities get paid too much? Absolutely. That's an aspect of sport that i truely believe is reaching it's threshold, for professional hockey that threshold will come this september. as for charity - i'm i bit flabergasted as why you would criticize an organization for their charity, even if their charity is partly self-serving. The fact that a charity like Canuck Place hospice is supported by a professional sports organization makes you want to throw-up makes me question your priorities.

This slick effort to rehab the image of the habituated reminds me of another incident involving a senior provincial politician whose late night drunk driving was so obvious Hawiian police couldn't look the other way. There are other parallels as well: both taking more than a day to work up the fortitude to offer some vague ''I'm sorry for what happened'' explanation; both trying to downplay their responsibility - I only had two drinks or he (Moore) wouldn't stop and fight me, and both obviously have good friends at the Vancover Sun who apparently depend on their continued success for a paycheque. I just can't wait to see this ungentle giant follow through with the classic ''I promise never to sucker punch again.'' I do hope, however, that Bertuzzi has enough class or public relations handling not to drag a clearly reluctant wife into the spotlights for the official mea-culpa. That would really be tacky.

Michael, I think what makes people like Cris want to throw-up isn't so much that a profressional sports organization funds a charity, but that ACT of doing so just about ensures that the charity becomes a piece of the merchandise / mechandising of the sports organization, so to speak. Hence it's not so much that something like Canuck House gets funded by the Canucks, but that it gets CALLED Canuck house in a continuous attempt to remind the masses of this altruistic generosity that the marketers want you to associate with the team organization.

That's one point; here's another. Brian Burke is crass, and arrogant, and only about half as smart as he thinks he is (which still makes him tolerably intelligent, much to my continued surprise), but he did the WRONG thing when he got up and wah-wah'd into a white towel on behalf of the remorseful Bertuzzi, then, he made it worse when he blamed the media for making this and other like situations into a public spectacle. Burke's offhand and conceited remarks--repeated many times over--about this or that being "none of the public's business" makes even a moron (someone Burke wouldn't suffer gladly) see that as long as media hype is positive, Mr Burke is happy to work on his gruff image (softened always by the notion of his little wife, child at breast). As soon as the tables are turned of course, Burke acts like an indignant fool who expected more, but knew he'd always get less from those media bums-maggots-scumbags (pick one of his regular epiteths).

The only thing more teeth-gritting than having to listen to Burke (or his press minions whining about Burke's contract negotiations) is having to listen to the sucking noises coming from Michael Campbell whenever the subject of Burtuzzi comes up...errr wHich is--because he's a stand in guy for Mather and kind of considers himself a regular Canucks PR guy--too often.

I agree Effle that it's questionable when a for-profit organization (be it a hockey team or otherwise) supports a charity if it's sole reason is to spin a positive public image. However, I really don't think that the Canuck brass it so uncaring and so cold that their support for canuck place is everything but altruistic. Or, maybe i'm just not that cynical. Regardless, doesn't canuck place still serve a much needed service in our community? Does it really matter where the money comes from? And does the name Canuck Place cheapen its existence? I believe that that professional sport is an important aspect of our society but I also believe that those involved with sports teams are in a position where they should give back to the communities in which they exist. I believe that morally, teams like the canucks have a duty to support charities with both money and time. To criticize the fact that the canuck organization and players do take an active part in the community... well, to me, that's sad.

Effle is closer to the mark, in my view. RP, I also well understand what it's like to have been a sports believer, playing several times a week and all that deal, so please. I happen to know “if its not for me”, and why. This isn’t about shinny with friends laughing and playing together. The discussion here is about PR and media spinning. Been in an office and listen in to next day after any game amongst men? As a human being (and certainly a physically active male), I personally find it sad. For a great many – it’s the primary framework of conversation that men are comfortably able to participate within. If there was violence, you can bet that that’s what gets the conversational excitement up. Puff up the ego, “feel like a man”, part of the “tribe’. And to me, it’s a complete crock. Look how cities get trashed – even when the home teams “wins” some piece of tin. It is a weird feeling when you don’t “speak the speak” – you want to see territory making in action, check it out. If people want to stay indoctrinated in views (parlayed by sportscasters, sports writers, and wanna-be-boxing-commentators)..of hockey as “NATIONAL” identity something-or-other - as if chasing rubber, or pigskin, rationalising smashing people's anatomies for "sport" is a “game” at all to anybody, well, who ever thinks so needs some serious help. Further, when one's filthy rich and acting like they're part of "community" I believe that they are not. There’s a con in that process and I don’t buy it – and I do not want to hog web space to elaborate. The money may be useful to a group – but it certainly as hell DOES matter where it comes from and how. The means speak a value system. Just on “economic” terms – why are they “overpaid’ (some may argue “they’re worth it”)? Why are tickets so expensive (maybe, uh, “because they are”), why ARE the “owners” the “players” – the advertisers – making that kind of money? Is money just some kind of “endless well”, coming in from fantasy land? – is it not within some economic and social framework? Hockey is a manufacturing and advertising machine – it is not a game.

Good points Chris (and i'm not using sarcasm here). I guess what it is, is that i took offense to being lumped in with the stereotype of the mindless male sports fan. I can have conversations with friends where one minute we're talking hockey, the next, we're discussing civility and politics. But to go back to the charity issue (sorry to keep going on this one) i just don't think a canuck sponsored charity is a bad thing. i see your point: it is good pr for the canucks which in turn mitigates the violent image associated with hockey which in turn may make it ok then for some families to attend hockey games which in turn means more money for the club. However, i just don't believe that's the sole reason the canucks get involve in the community the way they do and i don't think that the good pr increases their profit significantly. Just because hockey players are overplayed, should we not be able to accept their charity? it reminds me of how wal mart gives to black centred charities in the states in order to win over the black community in order to minimize the opposition to building wal marts in black neighborhoods. but i truely think that is a differest situation. The Vancouver Canucks are not altering the urban landscape, they are not destroying small businesses; wal mart is and they use charity to justify it, that's when it should be questioned.

I am a reformed sport-o-holic. I have played hockey and baseball and mostly stick to co-ed slow pitch nowadays, because I love to play. If you'd asked me what Barry Bonds was hittting against right handers in 1992, I probably could have told you. Then these very wealthy baseball players went on strike. Now I'm clinging to hockey as a last vestige and frankly I'm finding it hard to care. Is it a coincidence that there will likely be a strike next year? Chris has essentially the same perspective as I do now. Sports is either macho posturing or escapist. Don't believe me? Count the number of obese canuck fans the next time you feel compelled to watch a hockey game and ask yourself how these overweight, overworked, underpaid people (though admittedly enough for a ticket) have in common with the people on the ice other than a tenuous civic one.

Michael, I certainly mean no harm in my commentary to you or those who play and laugh together at anything. And I mean no harm, period, come to think of it. I’ve real concerns around the manufacture of “normalcy” and particularly male normalcy – a kind of normalizing of a particular kind of emotional “licence” that involves highly charged (or even violent) competitive frameworks. There is a “buy in” to certain mid-sets, I believe, and they have negative outcomes. The Corporate piggyback on the backs of “players” and vice versa is certainly a vast and intricate subject. It’s interesting you mention Wall Mart (and others like them) – their spinning of the folksy image as normal – while they’re operatively brutal as a Corporation is a typical pattern. It’s paradoxical that “sports viewers” sit back and view “their National game” while boffo company xyz, successfully advertises, spins its yarn, squeezes out local businesses, or infiltrates schools as sole source providers, etc. I happen to feel that extreme wealth purveyors appear to love “charity” – and to be viewed as charitable. Good for business and prestige, as was mentioned. Charity is like a feather in the cap of “the powerful”. That disparity is not an accident. And it’s not fundamentally because players are ‘good’ either.

I agree that the Global television footage showing the harrassment of Bertuzzi's neighbours was some of the lowest News coverage I have seen in Canada. It is because of that incident that I think Brian Burke's comments about the media in this case were right on. I do not however agree that the Canucks need to "admit they were wrong". They have every right to defend Todd Bertuzzi the way they did - they are not defending the actions, but defending a good human being who made a bad mistake.

"The media" (broadcast versions) is, and will always be, a shark pen. It bleeds it leads - and if it keeps bleeding for them by whatever means – it’s a money maker for "sport" writers and the business that pays them. And that may seem pretty crass - but I happen to believe it's operationally true. The smell of a media target's blood will always set them off. When you have "good human beings" that near cripple others - in an act that was wilfull and plainly deliberate to injure (in the real world its full on assault –see you in court) - for so-called “sport” - no “team” frankly should try to rationalise it - nor should they "protest" or act "The media" (broadcast versions) is, and will always be, a shark pen. It bleeds it leads - and if it keeps bleeding for them by whatever means – it’s a money maker for "sport" writers and the business that pays them. And that may seem pretty crass - but I happen to believe it's operationally true. The smell of a media target's blood will always set them off. And when you have "good human beings" that near cripple others - in an act that was wilfull and plainly deliberate to injure (in the real world it’s full on assault – see you in court) - for so-called “sport” - no “sport” team frankly should try to rationalise it in any way shape or form - nor should they "protest" or act too harrumphed at the feeding frenzy that inevitably follows. When gooning is part of the business plan, ALL the “players” in that type of business model will certainly step forward. The “game” - the business model of it - is absolutely to blame – as is those who complicity sponsor it for their own financial benefit – the crass hockey “commentators’ who are afraid of any word with more than one syllable, the smart-alec radio “sport desk” jocks – the swagger boys that pitch “guy” talk in suits.

Hugh, I well understand your sentiments about the sport-o-holic phenomenon. It is indeed also interesting to see how “inactive” many (but certainly not all) sport consumers are. Was it just the greed that tuned you off? About the posters comment around media, and where the line ought to be - "The media" (“broadcast” versions) is, and will always be, a shark pen. It bleeds it leads - and if it keeps bleeding for them by whatever means – it’s a money maker for "sport" writers and the business that pays them. And that may seem pretty crass - but I happen to believe it's operatively true. The smell of a media target's blood will always set them off. And when you have "good human beings" that near cripple others - in an act that was wilful and plainly deliberate to injure (in the real world it’s full on assault – see you in court) - for so-called “sport” - no “sport” team frankly should try to rationalise it in any way shape or form - nor should they "protest" or act too harrumphed at the feeding frenzy that inevitably follows. When gooning is part of the business plan, ALL the “players” in that type of business model will certainly step forward. The “game” - the business model of it - is absolutely to blame – as are those who complicity sponsor it for their own financial benefit – the crass hockey “commentators’ who are afraid of any word with more than one syllable, the smart-alec radio “sport desk” jocks – the swagger boys that pitch “guy” talk in suits. It’s also quite to be interesting to see The Tyee setting up a “sports section”, as it appears…

My apologies for the inadvertent double post (it didn't appear to "send") - I'd be happy if the top one -4/9/2004 6:41:33 PM- (and this one now) where deleted.

The Canucks have, indeed, done a masterful job of rehabilitating Bertuzzi’s reputation. However, what this media campaign has done is to help obscure just how grossly unfair Bertuzzi’s suspension was. The problem with Bertuzzi’s suspension is procedural and not substantive. Historically, the NHL has treated stick related infractions much more seriously than non stick related infractions. Hitherto, the longest suspension for an elbow, or a punch is Matt Johnson’s sucker punch for which he received 12 games. In this sense there is no point in comparing what happened to Brasher, also a completely unprecedented suspension, with what happened to Moore. What is more, the decision to factor in a victim’s health, whether in the long term or short term, is also completely without precedent. (Bertuzzi’s hit was eerily similar Johnson’s. The hit left Beukeboom with a concussion that not only ended Beukeboom’s career, it left him with lingering symptoms that persist to this day.) In all, Bertuzzi will miss at a minimum 13 regular season games and 5 playoff games. Potentially he could miss up to 28 playoff games and if the suspension carries into next year god knows how many regular season games. The decision to suspend Bertuzzi for the playoffs is particularly extreme. The NHL has historically been very reluctant to suspend someone for long durations during the playoffs. Claude Lemieux received only two games for what he did to Kris Draper; had he done that in the regular season. It is generally agreed that he would likely have gotten around 10 games. The NHL’s decision to use a knew unspecified rubric to suspend Bertuzzi is completely arbitrary and seems akin to a judge choosing without explaining himself to hand down a 50 year sentence for a crime that usually nets at most 15 years. (It is a mistake to say that they threw the book at him. What they did is they did is write a new book, especially for him and then threw that at him.) What the NHL should have done is handed down a stiff suspension (e.g., last 13 games of the regular season 4 playoff games). Then, in the summer Bettman and company could have sat down with the players union and management and hashed out an agreement that spelled out clear criteria the league would use judge whether a player would be suspended and if so for how long. They could also spell out what penalties would be given out for publicly inciting violence. If it was then decided that the health of the victim of incident should be taken into account, fine. If it was decided that a Moore like incident warranted a 50 game suspension, that is fine too. If the McSorely and Hunter cases proved anything, it is that far from setting the NHL on a new course the odd draconian suspension has further mudded the waters. The system for handing down suspensions is, as more than a few NHL players have already noted, even less predictable then it was before. If you sucker punch a guy, you will get anywhere from between 2 to 12 games. If on the other hand you sucker punch a guy and by some fluke the guy ends up with two fractured vertebra in the subsequent pileup, then you get the stiffest suspension ever handed down. Contrary to what Bettman might think, a fluke occurrence can not be used as precedent: after all, a fluke occurrence is by definition rare. What is worse, since fluke occurrences are by definition rare, Bertuzzi’s punishment is not likely to deter anyone from taking a shot at another player; if they think it through at all, they are going to be thinking, what are the chances. The same thing goes for the fine leveled against the Canucks. In so far, as Clarke can wax poetic about hurting Hossa and Havlet and not get punished, the message the head office is sending is that so long as someone does not end up with two fractured vertebra, such talk is permissible.

Holding, kneeing, elbowing, tripping, high sticking, spearing, charging, 10 minutes for un-sportsman-like conduct. What a knockout of telling language. “Lady Byng trophy”..for sportsmanship and gentlemanly conduct combined with a high standard of playing ability – and rather arcane seeming award contemporarily - and it’s quite amusing that the Professional Hockey Writers' Association – the business club of “sport” manufacturing – award this. It’s rather interesting that it’s a woman who donated that type of award, and is given in a woman’s name. er, btw, FLUKE OCCURRENCE ??? It’s amazing, given the current framework that’s utterly ENCOURAGED – to sell “game” tickets, or TV viewership for advertisers - that many – many – more “players” aren’t injured constantly. Applying a “faux judiciary” analysis isn’t going to change anything when this basic business tenet is in place. The is about money – not “sport”. These “arenas” and their “teams” are owned by barons, a kind of patron indulgence sold to the local mob to get jollies by whatever means – if it sells – you bet they’re onside. Further, a lot of “players” are from so-called “lower” class backgrounds – there’s a belly-full of violent history underneath the surface of a great many of them.

Hugh, about your comment on "stats" I quite agree on its pervasiveness to “believers”. I “used to know” all that gak as well. It’s an interesting ploy in inventing, and expanding on "the game's" language...expanding the vocabulary, and giving the viewer social privilege in the "sport believer tribe” with endless (oddball) "statistics". Because many – though not you – nor certainly not you, Michael :) ...have got little else from a social get go to talk about – especially with other men. It becomes a “fast bridge” over..(I’ll leave that song out of this). It becomes their "world" - (I believe) in many cases, to mask personality or life issues and instead stay on the treadmill of a particular life pattern. Statisticians and sportswriters dip into this salespeak tool set constantly, to market any game – and themselves.

“FLUKE OCCURRENCE ??? It’s amazing, given the current framework that’s utterly ENCOURAGED – to sell “game” tickets, or TV viewership for advertisers - that many – many – more “players” aren’t injured constantly.” In the 80 plus years of hockey just how many players suffered a broken neck as a result of a punch to the head then being forced to the ice? One: That in my books is a “fluke” occurrence. “Applying a “faux judiciary” analysis isn’t going to change anything when this basic business tenet is in place.” My “faux judiciary analysis” was never intended to change “the basic business tenet in place”. Therefore saying that it falls short because it does not do so is nothing more than a red herring. What I said was given the imperfect precedent based system for handing down suspensions in the NHL, Bertuzzi was treated unfairly. If you would like dispute this, fine. However, musings about the violent tendencies of people with working class backgrounds is hardly relevant.

What the "red herring" (typical for self-rationalisations of violence in "sport")..here is the petty-fogging "NHL punishment analysis" (or any other “sports” with an implicit component of violence) and a misapplication of the notion of "fair". People who bash other people DO have screwed up personalities and backgrounds, and the purveyors and consumers of violent offerings are further complicit in its manufacture. These become normalising messages to consumers, youths, whomever. Unless in your right mind think it's “normal”. But, it's plausible - you might think it normal - if you first compartmentise and situate applications of normalcy, play, and violence into separate camps in you own brain (as in "oh, it's ok, this is a “tough” [violent] game" types of belief - one that you personally might "like"). I think it's utterly abnormal. Some might prefer a mini tribunal on the nature of justice, at some wafer level of reflection on the matter, and pass on the rest. Anyone can pass on it – or squint, at what avoidance terms as “musings” – but more and more others will begin to choose not to swallow that old mock-judiciary saw.

"What the "red herring" (typical for self-rationalisations of violence in "sport")..here is the petty-fogging "NHL punishment analysis" (or any other “sports” with an implicit component of violence) and a misapplication of the notion of "fair"." You seem to believe that there is an absolute notion of what is fair. That being the case, once you have channeled what suspension is fair, please get back to me. I only ask that in responding instead of blathering on -- again -- about the culture of violence in hockey you address the ad hoc nature of Bertuzzi’s suspension.

I read your first unsigned treatise, so reflect accordingly when commenting. The arguments you express around fairness - all of them - are based on artificial boundaries all right, your own, to be - the joke here - arbitered by a business group who's agenda is to make money above all. That very group is what sanctioned the expansion of the violence in the first place. Your argument clearly avoids reference to fact - and instead tries to invent some notion, or “point of discussion” of what's “fair” – in some comparison to other players violence or pre-season sport legislation. I’m still appalled by the line: “the decision to factor in a victim’s health, whether in the long term or short term, is also completely without precedent”. How about it’s a good decision right now and always would have been? You clearly appear to want to “reduce” any argument to “just the game” and its terms of reference. As was mentioned, arbitrarily constrained reflections, applied as the only and permitted terms of reference - as your type argument attempt - will not address violence in hockey. This is not about the Players union and the Board haggling in advance and conducting a historical analysis. With regard to history in the NHL, as far a violence is concerned, there had been a period when there was sharp enforcement of anti-fighting policies. Wasn't making money. Outcome "get some more excitement" - translation, “lets let them go at it for a while”. That’s what happened after the 70’s. Critical thought and “general” (not the sport crowd)..public sensibilities around violence in the game went right out the window – and that’s what happened – and will continue to happen in this business model - when the bucks stop coming in. Further, cult of personality “sports” figures like – barely concealed racist Cherry, are all about selling violence. Interestingly – and rather tellingly, I don’t see you responding on what your personal perspective is around violence in sport – personally, I’m not concerned with “the NHLs opinion” or “historical precedents” that you go on about. All that’s been posted is umbrage around “historical precedence”. You might like – or rationalize the brawl mindset as acceptable and part of “the game”. But, if you want to dicker with an important idea like “fair”, and, try to reduce it – arbitrarily frame it - to whether the “players union” or NHL board have “first agreed” to what ought to have been meted out “pre-season”, so “therefore” the Bertuzzi’s of any sport should get a more “fair” shake and should “play now”, well, I certainly don’t think so.

“I’m still appalled by the line: “the decision to factor in a victim’s health, whether in the long term or short term, is also completely without precedent”. How about it’s a good decision right now and always would have been?” I have no problem taking a players health in consideration. However, how about may point that it is completely arbitrary to factor it now? “You clearly appear to want to “reduce” any argument to “just the game” and its terms of reference.” When dealing with matter of procedure, yes I do. “As was mentioned, arbitrarily constrained reflections, applied as the only and permitted terms of reference - as your type argument attempt - will not address violence in hockey.” I never pretended to address it. However you seem to miss that by dealing with Bertuzzi in a ham fisted manner, the NHL has been able to sweep the whole subject of hockey violence under the carpet. The masses, including I might add the PM, wanted blood and, arbitrarily defined, of course, they got it. With their blood lust satisfied, they have again stopped paying any attention and the status quo in the NHL goes unchallenged. If the NHL had done things by the book and handed down a suspension, which was consistent with pass rulings, the public at large would not have been satisfied and there would have been calls for reform. Hell, the issue of how those corporate types promote a cultural of violence might even have come up.

Interesting comments, Koby. And refreshingly more frank. I might say that I just happened read a short snippet on Dan Russell (“sports talk”), ex-CKNW radio talk show host. I think one thing I infer from our exchange, and in reading of Russell's take on his role to the sporting masses (and having listened a couple of times to sport believers try to "take him on"), is that debates around serious "guy games" are filled with a huge emotional charge. Whatever "games" symbolize to the viewers - I've touched on a but few…it's vastly larger (as I see them from my lens, having been a once upon a time an absolute and total believer)...sport believers will argue life and death about a topic, like their life and credibility are on the line. I agree with your opinion about this shipping magnate who wants to be ceo of our country (to apply someone else's turn of phrase). He wants power over, and people who're into power over rather than of, are ok with seeing some form of a bowery. People have long memories however. I actually have faith in the population to see through any system's bs, or any wannabe leader who'll try to say anything to get elected.

Wow...a real live Marxist critique of sports! Thanks for setting me straight. And people said left wing media was doomed because of arrogance and paternalism!

Bertuzzi's just a knuckle dragger who should be on display in a museum somewhere

What's the matter, John? Did "paternalism"'s five syllables confuse you?

The reason Bertuzzi's "apology" was delayed was likely not a failure of the spin doctors, but wrangling over language with lawyers. The "apology" very carefully avoided taking any responsibility. I am a lawyer, and it was exactly the kind of "apology" I would have written for a client who was guilty.

Interesting comment. Indeed - "a terrible, terrible"...mistake.

BEING A SPORTS FANATIC FOR MANY, MANY YEARS I WAS,AND AM AMAZED BY SOME OF THE RESPONSES TO THE"INCIDENT". IT WAS A COLD BLOODED,COWARDLY AND METHODICAL ASSUALT,PERIOD. IF I OR ANY "AVERAGE" CITIZEN HAD STALKED AND SUCKERED SOMEONE IN SUCH A WAY, WE WOULD CERTAINLY BE WORRYING ABOUT MORE THAN A SUSPENSION AND THE LOSS OF A "FEW DOLLARS"(A TAX RITE-OFF). AS FOR THE SO CALLED APOLOGY;INSTEAD OF TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS ACTIONS,BERTUZZI STOOD FEELING SORRY FOR HIMSELF AS IF HE WERE THE VICTIM.

Chuck, you might be a sports fan but I doubt that you're a "fanatic'. and I doubt even more that you even watch hockey much less enjoy it. You would be wetting your trousers constantly, if your overamplified comments are to be taken literally. Not to go over ground that's been done to death elsewhere on this site, but… Oh, the hell with it. People like Chuck never get it anyway, at least in terms of applying their outrage to how they look at everyday life outside of the arena of the fictional, the fantastic, entertainment, and violent contests between consensual millionaires. The kind of people who step over bodies on the sidewalk on their way into church.

Of course, in an article about how the media contributes to the spin around Bertuzzi I find it interesting that Brenda Jones uses the Colorado Avalanche description of the injury: broken neck. That term usually conjures images of fatal injuries or paralysis. Steve Moore fractured two vertebrae, an injury that while serious, does not have nearly the same dramatic effect as saying his "neck was broken." Spin and counterspin are oft difficult to differentiate.

"Broken neck." "Fractured vertebrae." Which is plain English, and which is obfuscation? Bones were broken. They were in Steve Moore's neck. Using five syllables of medical jargon instead of three simple, Anglo-Saxon syllables is like saying "passed on" instead of "died" or "collateral damage" instead of "dead civilians."

Sorry, Shane, the spin is from you. Sometimes the "jargon" is merely in the service of accuracy. "Fractured vertebrae" can in no way be compared with the appallingly offensive "collateral damage", and the discussion here isn't furthered by lazy and specious arguments. David's point is how those words are commonly received by people who hear newscasts reporting that climbers died from a "broken neck" or someone dove into a shallow pool and was rendered paraplegic by a "broken neck". The illusion of near-tragedy is further heightened by the soon-to-sue "victim"'s widely reported comments that he is "fortunate to be alive". Hogwash. The spin is all from the other side.

I heard Steve Moore comment on Todd Bertuzzi's hit to him, and after hearing Steve Moore's whining and self pity, I lost all respect for Moore. If it wasn't for the way that Markus Naslund had fallen to the ice and he hadn't had a load of his own players land on top of him, Steve Moore could very well be in the same position that Bertuzzi is now in. If the police are going to look at charging Bertuzzi with assault, then maybe they should also have a look at the still evident scar on Markus Naslunds face, courtesy of Steve Moore's hit, and maybe he should be charged as well.

For all your lack of interest in this story about sports and about "one millionaire punching another", you've all certainly given a lot of attention to it. There are stories that will have far more ramifications on our society in this issue of thetyee, and yet all of you spend days arguing about this one. No wonder sports promoters, etc. are wealthy, dumb jocks.

I notice you paid attention too, cmac. And no one said they had a lack of interest in this story. If you'd look around, you'd notice there's plenty of interest. We'll all be looking for your brilliant contributions from now on, though. Dumb non-jock.

top 10 vancouver canucks marketing slogans... 10. 3 different logos, a dozen different uniforms, 0 Stanley Cups. 9. Our coach has better hair than yours. 8. Canucks fans are so gullible, they think waving white towels means that they'll win. 7. We repeat, no arrests have been made. 6. Martin Rucinsky and Geoff Sanderson: the closest thing to Teemu Selanne and Paul Kariya Canadian money can buy. 5. Check your lucky program number: you could be our new starting goaltender! 4. Mark Messier slept here. 3. Orca: the other white meat. 2. Shut up and buy tickets or we follow the Grizzlies to Memphis And the number 1 vancouver canucks market slogan is.... 1. 2004 Northwest Division Champions!

Holy moly. It was just a punch. The guy got hurt. He apologized. The guy will get better. Everyone please calm down. Call me crazy, but maybe you should try to focus your energy on something that deserves attention. Like war, or corruption, or environmental destruction for example.

Flabbergasted,I'd like to stand with you on urging people to calm down, but the first two of your recommended alternatives are what it's all about. The problem is that NHL hockey world is a separate reality of the sort Carlos Castaneda likes to leap into on occasion. The war is over an ever expanding piece of hardware some British Lord once donated to honor the best amateur hockey team on an annual basis. Somehow free (private sector, if you prefer) enterprise stole the show from the public sector( definitely not for profit) just like they are doing in health care today, which also points to the corruption you speak of. I guess it was ''just a punch'', but if it happened in a football, soccer, cricket or baseball game or even out back of some decrepit beer hall, wouldn't it still be called a sucker punch, a step or two below the example we want set for impressional minds. I realize my comparison to other sports isn't environmental, but it does seem to touch on the destruction. Oh, gotta run, I see some Canuck fans headed my way.

Who thinks if the player that did the hitting was on a U.S. team the suspension would have been this severe? And if Todd was to quote Burke "warm and fuzzy" with the news reporters they would have crucified him to the extent they did?

''It was a terrible, terrible, mistake,'' said the dejected Vancouver fan. ''We were supposed to win!''

I can't believe you guys actually wrote this much about this story.

No one touched it for two weeks until you did, Paul.

Oh, crap! And now me!