Fans Pay for Players’ Mistakes

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

The latest NBA brawl is notable mainly because of the harsh reaction by the league. Of course, as is the case in all of these situations, the only true loser is the fans.

Think about this. The NBA’s leading scorer, Carmelo Anthony, has been rightly suspended for 15 games for his involvement in a recent on-court dust-up between the New York Knicks and Anthony’s Denver Nuggets. Anthony, of course, is one of the leagues “next ones,” drafted behind only Cleveland’s LeBron James and Orlando’s Darko Milicic (originally chosen by Detroit) and before Toronto’s Chris Bosh.

The length of the suspension shows two things: one, the league is serious about cracking down on violence, even if that means suspending one if its young, marquee talents; and, two, the league really doesn’t care that much about its fans.

That’s right. By suspending Carmelo Anthony (and, to a lesser extent, the other players who received varying degrees of penalties), the league has said to the NBA fans in general – and Denver fans in particular – that it doesn’t care about providing value for the entertainment dollar. Discipline defeats customer appreciation every time.

Of those 15 games that Anthony has been suspended, 12 of them take place in Denver. With the team clinging to seventh place in the Western Conference, there’s a good chance that after 10 games without its top two scorers (J.R. Smith received 10 games off for his involvement in the fracas) the club will find itself on the outside looking in. That means you’ve got two sets of losers: the team and the hard-working, money-paying fans.

By suspending Anthony, who is already rich beyond most of our wildest dreams – no matter how wild your dreams may be, the league has done minimal damage to the player. Sure, his endorsements may falter a little bit, but they’ll come back (Kobe Bryant, anyone?) In the end, Anthony suffers little more than a 15-game break that will end up leaving him fresher in the long run – perhaps bestowing an advantage to him during the end-of-season grind.

But imagine if you’re a Nuggets fan, who has saved up all year – or longer – to earn enough to pay for a couple of seasons’ tickets. You sacrifice on other things for the right to go to the game to see one of the league’s elite players on a nightly basis – only to have that taken away from you because of one player’s selfish act.

Or what about those dedicated fans who may have planned a holiday trip to Colorado, partly to catch their beloved Nuggets in action. The value of their trip has gone down, but I don’t see anyone in the NBA offering a reimbursement.

Sure, Anthony’s the one getting punished, but why does it have to hurt the fan so much?

Like the punk kid in school who looks at a suspension as nothing more than time off of school, the NBA’s form of punishment here is ineffective at best – and punitive to the fans at worst (don’t believe me? Try asking some Indiana Pacers’ fans about their experience a couple of years back).

So what’s the solution? Simple. Anthony doesn’t miss a single game. He continues to play for the Nuggets, providing the fans value for their money. However, he does not earn any salary for the duration of his suspension – essentially working for free. And then, at the end of the season, he is compelled to perform various acts of league-imposed community service in the Denver community as a way to make up for sullying the club’s name. And the same goes for the players in New York.

The other alternative is to make players financially liable for the losses incurred by the franchise or the fans as a result of their actions. If a player’s suspension results in the loss of playoff revenue, then perhaps a percentage of the player’s salary should be returned to the club in the form of compensation.

In fact, why not open up class action suits for fans who can prove that their investment has been devalued by these actions? A season ticket holder can argue that his 40+ game investment has lost over a quarter of its value – and the player could then be responsible for reimbursing every fan who makes a claim (within reason of course). Maybe a nice hand-written note of apology could accompany each cheque.

Of course, this will never happen. For a Player’s Association that defends its members, even if they choke management (and, yes, I’m looking at you Latrell Sprewell), doing the right thing comes second to protecting its dues-paying members.

But imagine if we could hit players where it truly hurts – in the pocketbook. Heck, these guys all say they love the game so much they’d play it for free, but I have a belief that when push comes to shove money matters. When you threaten those paycheques – or make them play without pay – chances are incidents like this will drop dramatically. In the NBA – as in any professional sport – money talks. So this solution could be used in all major sports: the NHL, NFL, and MLB!

Best of all, this would only impact a small number of people, as most athletes are fine, upstanding individuals. But if you’re going to step outside of the rules, you should be forced to own up to your transgressions.

After all, it’s not the fans’ fault, so why should they be forced to pay – both literally and figuratively – for someone else’s mistakes?

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

The Other Side of the Vagrancy Coin

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

It’s all too easy in our politically correct world to simply label people who express concerns about vagrancy as insensitive, elitist, or ignorant. The one idea we are reluctant to embrace the fact that they may be right.

We all want to do and say the right things, but sometimes it’s hard to reconcile what’s right and what’s real. Such is the case with the issue of vagrancy in the downtown core.

I do not spend as much time downtown as I would like. Or, more appropriately, I don’t spend as much time downtown as I think I should. For me, more conveniently located stores and lack of time have been the greatest factors in this reality. And the one excuse that many use always seemed false to me – until this weekend.

Fear.

We have reports from store owners saying that the presence of vagrants scares away potential clients. And I, like many others, were quick to dismiss these complaints as an indication that some people just aren’t sensitive to the needs of others. These vagrants are down on their luck and simply trying to survive. For whatever reasons or demons that drove them to this state, the fact of the matter is that vagrancy is the state in which they now find themselves.

It’s too easy to hold onto our left-wing, love everyone mentality when we’re looking through the green-tinted windows of our ivory towers. It’s when you get on the street level that the complexities of the problem truly reveal themselves.

Driving downtown on a lazy Sunday, I was struck by the sheer volume of down-on-their-luck men hanging around the corner of Horton and Wellington. It’s understandable due to the mission tucked in a little down the side street there, but to see the number was a stark reminder of how lucky we are.

But just as telling were the empty storefronts and depressed area that served as a backdrop for this collection of people. It’s a reminder of the impact that vagrancy can have on a region.

As one who loves to walk – and I spend as much time as I can walking the downtown streets, whether here, in Montreal, or Toronto, I take note of my surroundings. And looking at the collection of people standing around there, I thought to myself that this would be one path that I’d avoid.

Now, I’m a 33-year-old male. I’m about six-feet-tall and find myself wavering between the good and bad side of 200 pounds. And I was given pause to stop. What about my wife? What about my young son and daughter? Would they be comfortable walking through that environment? By extension, would an elderly couple, or group of young girls feel secure in the same situation? Can we not see that this may have an impact on people’s decisions on where and when to shop?

Obviously not everyone that’s a vagrant is violent. But there are some – just as there are in all walks of life – who can be violent, or who may be unstable. Are you willing to risk that type of encounter when there are malls and other shopping venues scattered throughout the city?

So what’s the solution? Simply shuffling vagrants off and putting them out of sight is akin to putting a bandage on the arm of someone who has cancer – it’s ineffective and eventually the patient dies from within. The issue of vagrancy is one that we have to tackle on a societal basis. We need to come up with programs and services to keep people off the street and help them either get the support they need, or reintegrate them into society. Now that’s easy to say, but seemingly impossible to do. The fact of the matter is that there is no fast and easy solution to homelessness here.

But the most important thing we need to do is stop being so quick to condemn those who are speaking only their truth. The idea of a storefront owner complaining about the presence of vagrants may appear to be callous, but it is their reality. Shoppers have choices and will stay away if they feel uncomfortable.

That may not represent the best that humanity has to offer, but it’s a truth nonetheless. Only listening to the truths that make us feel good while ignoring the realities that may not be as politically correct or uplifting doesn’t help us solve any of the problems that we face.

When you actually take a moment to walk a few steps in someone else’s shoes, then it’s a little easier to see that the path isn’t as rosy as we’d like to believe. And maybe by putting foot to pavement and getting a first-hand view of the problem, we can find some better solutions along the way.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Get Your Christ Out of My Christmas

2 Replies

By Jason Menard

OK, that’s it. I’m normally a pretty tolerant guy. I figure you’re welcome to believe whatever you want to believe (or not believe) as long as you’re not hurting or bothering anyone. But when a simple well-meant Merry Christmas has the same effect as hurling a racial epithet, then it’s time that we take a stand.

My stand? Get your Christ out of my Christmas!

There. I said it. Let’s celebrate Christmas for what it actually is – a celebration of joy, love, family, and giving at best. And an orgy of materialism, financial mismanagement, and stress at worst.

Personally, I’d rather focus on the former, but nothing turns me into a Scrooge more than some supercilious Christian looking down on me and chastising me for forgetting the true meaning of Christmas!

Apparently my view of truth differs than others. I thought the timing Christmas celebration was incorporated into the Christian religion was more tied into the pre-existing Saturnalia celebrations (a time when Romans would give gifts to their slaves – you know, to make up for a whole year of abuse, labour, and general flogging) than any sort of commemoration of labour pains!

In fact, let’s just deal with the idea that – despite what the song says – Christ was not born on Christmas Day. But don’t take my word for it – let’s hear what some experts have to say on the subject. For example, in the Gospel of Luke, it refers to the blessed event taking place during the Roman census, when Joseph and Mary visited Bethlehem.

“It has the shepherds tending their sheep in the fields at night. That doesn’t sound like December in the Holy Land,” said Father John A. Leies, professor of theology at St. Mary’s University, deep in the heart of Texas. “They wouldn’t be tending sheep in the winter.”

Certainly makes sense to me. But what else? Well, just do a little searching on the Internet – or even better, in books – and you’ll see that there are a wide range of beliefs regarding the actual timing of Christ’s birth ranging from Oct. 1 – the Day of Atonement, to some point in April or May. Most scholars, in fact, dismiss the idea that Christ was born on Christmas Day.

So, what then is the true meaning of Christmas? Because it seems that many are missing the boat both historically and philosophically.

Is it people grumbling under their breath, chastising those of us who enjoy the less-religious aspects of the holiday season? Perhaps my definition of Christian charity is a little wonky, but that certainly doesn’t seem to be the intent behind that concept.

Unfortunately, we’re so afraid to say anything to anyone that this season becomes a veritable vortex of hurt feelings, aspersions cast, and hypersensitivity. In fact, just this week some misguided, but well-intentioned, judge ordered the removal of a Christmas tree from a downtown Toronto courthouse due to the fact that it may offend non-Christians.

Let’s forget, for a moment, that the Yuletide tree itself is an icon conscripted by the Christians from Pagan religions – you know, just to make the heathens feel more at home once they finally convert. The modern idea of a Christmas tree is something that Santa comes to put presents under.

Ideally, let’s get the Christ out of Christmas. Let’s make it a wonderful celebration for each and every one of us! Let’s commemorate the holiday season by celebrating this wonderful confluence of all race, cultures, and creeds that grace this planet. Let’s make it a celebration of peace, joy, and love – one that crosses all ethnic and spiritual barriers.

In no way should the alleged son of some people’s God be the focus – especially not when his good deeds and life are taken in vain by those who allege to follow his lead. It’s hard to follow the tenets of “Love Thy Neighbour” and “Do Unto Others” when you’re looking down on those who don’t share your interpretation of the holidays.

Hey, I’m sure we can all come to a compromise! You get the Christ out of Christmas, and we’ll drop the name from the celebration. Some people already use Xmas, so we can go that route. Or, we can come up with an entirely new name for the celebration! Whatever. I don’t care. All I want is for us to celebrate life – not chastise each other.

So, to paraphrase Clement Clarke Moore: Now Athiests, now Agnostics, now Muslims and Christians; On Jewish, on Buddhists, on Taoists and Diwalians; Happy Xmas to all, and to all a good night!

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Hospitals Having a (Mad) Cow in Response

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

The response by University Hospital to the alleged discovery that a man has presented with the human version of Mad Cow disease is almost more terrifying than the presence of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in the city of London itself.

Let’s see. Because brain tissue samples from the patient, who underwent brain surgery in the north-end hospital on Nov. 30, 2006, tested positive for CJD the hospital has cancelled all surgeries, turned ambulances away at the door, and put the kibosh on most medical procedures — all this because certain instruments may have been contaminated by the disease.

In total, hospital officials estimate that upwards of 1,500 people could have been exposed to the disease. Again, I stress could, because hospital officials state they are confident that they have contained the situation. At this time, they say they’re not even sure if any of the instruments are contaminated. They’re just playing it safe.

But obviously not safe enough. To be honest, the fact that this hospital has essentially been shut down by the presence of this disease makes me more frightened for the standards of quality control that exist in this environment.

When it comes to hospital equipment, the one thing that shouldn’t be scrimped on is sterilization. Unfortunately, Keystone Kop capers like this make me wonder if I should question whether that scalpel about to enter my body has received little more than a rinse and shake under running hot water. Or maybe they dipped it into that unidentifiable blue stuff that barbers use to sterilize their scissors.

Sure, I’m being flippant, but I only am because I’d hate to think that this is an issue to take seriously. Unfortunately, it is.

A few years back my father was at this very same hospital for a quadruple bypass. But if that wasn’t stressful enough, at the time we also had to be concerned about the presence of Norwalk Virus in the area. In Montreal we were regaled with stories of deadly bacteria entering the bodies of surgery patients through antiquated ventilation systems. It almost makes you wonder whether you’re safer taking your chances at home.

I’m a big believer in second chances. I’m also of the mind that everyone should be allowed to make mistakes and learn from them. That is, everyone except doctors and medical staff. Maybe that’s unfair of me. But the simple fact of the matter is that when I go into a hospital environment, chances are I’m entrusting my life to these people’s hands. I’d like to think that they’re capable.

A mistake made in a hospital can often result in dramatic consequences – for the patient. It’s not like a kid missing a spelling error on a test. Even someone who makes a poor business decision – no matter how dramatic or costly it may be — is only dealing with a bottom line. With the medical community, the bottom line they’re affecting is one that can rapidly go flat when something goes wrong.

Is it unfair to expect perfection from our medical staff? Is it wrong for me to expect that my hospitals should be a place of respite from the illnesses in the outside world, instead of being a place for me to catch the latest Superbug?

The fact that University Hospital is taking such drastic measures should assure the public that they are taking this threat – no matter how remote it may be – seriously. They are doing all they can to contain the disease.

But what I would have rather heard is simply this: nothing. I would rather have read an announcement from the hospital saying that a patient in the ward presented with CJD, but due to the rigid sanitation and care standards enacted by the hospital, any potential contamination was eliminated through the standard procedures.

I’m not naïve enough to think that bad things don’t exist in hospitals. There are some nasty diseases and bugs flying around there. But if I know that, my hope is that hospitals are aware of that fact and do everything they can to eliminate any threat that’s out there. Otherwise the ramifications can be huge.

After all, our doctors, nurses, and other medical staff aren’t restricted to the hospital. They don’t live their lives in hermetically sealed facilities only to serve us. They put in shifts, they go out with their families – and they have the potential to spread whatever nefarious illness that they’ve encountered during their normal rounds with the society at large.

There are two solutions: one, which really isn’t a solution, is quarantine; the other is obsessive care with a compulsive attention to detail. If it takes boiling each instrument in lava after each procedure, then that’s what it takes. No half-assed attempts, no cutting corners, and no mistakes.

It’s a lot to ask. But that kind of attention to detail would mean that instead of a health scare we’d be facing a health triumph. And we’d all feel a little bit better about going to the hospital.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

The Fall of the USSR, the Fall of a Rivalry

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

For one day, on an ice rink outside Red Square, the embers of a faded rivalry will be stoked again, and memories of that passionate time will be rekindled.

As a hockey-loving Canadian youth, few things were more intense and more passionate than the Cold War-era U.S.S.R.-Canada hockey rivalry. One could argue that while the world in general may be a better and safer place since the fall of the Soviet Union, hockey itself is poorer for the loss of that rivalry.

So that’s why it is with fond appreciation that I look forward to the Dec. 9 th showdown between Russian hockey greats and retired NHLers. It will be a contest that features the reunification of the KLM line, Vladislav Tretiak in net, and Slava Fetisov and Alexei Kasatonov patrolling the blueline once again.

In general, I avoid old timer’s games like the plague, preferring to remember these greats as they were in their prime, not the lumbering, diminished versions that lace up the skates now. This event may be different. Of course, the memories of that time are different.

Growing up in the latter part of the Cold War, when nuclear proliferation was at its peak, the Soviet Union was an enigmatic country arousing both fear and interest. I was born a few months late for the Canada-Russia Summit Series in 1972, but its ramifications resonated in our family. In fact, to this day I possess an audio cassette recording of that final game, made for me by an uncle (and featuring a great-grandfather – unfamiliar with the concept of replays – getting extremely excited at the 7-0 blowout to start the game, instead of realizing it was just highlights from previous game action.)

I grew up knowing about names like Tretiak and learning about the greatness of Valery Kharlamov. When I was old enough to have memories of my own, the next wave of Soviet greats was dominating international competition: Vladimir Krutov, Igor Larionov, and Sergei Makarov.

It was a different time. Now, the NHL is a veritable melting pot featuring the best from around the world. For my own children, the existence of Russians, Czechs, and Slovaks in the league is the norm. And, as such, international competitions, while exciting, aren’t infused with the same level of passion that those earlier series were.

In the 80s, it was different. We didn’t know the Russians. We weren’t allowed to see them as real people. To us – especially the youth – they were cold, calculating, perfect hockey-playing machines. We knew our own Canadian boys, faults and all. And we bought into the mystique that Canadian grit, heart, determination, and passion could conquer precision, deft passing, and discipline.

Often it did. And when it did, it wasn’t just a victory for a team. It was a victory for a way of life.

As youth, we were convinced that nuclear warheads were pointed at our cities. We engaged in now-bizarre drills that involved us sitting under our tables with our heads between our legs. We read about people who had created fallout shelters. We watched The Day After and Red Dawn (did I just voluntarily admit watching a Patrick Swayze film???). For us, “the button” was very real, and we grew up knowing that the end of the world was an event with the potential of happening in our lifetimes.

Our ignorance and fear of another group of people – fuelled by the fact that we were kids and didn’t take the time to learn any better – added to the mystique of our Soviet counterparts. We suspected them of conducting nefarious scientific experiments to improve performance in their athletes (à la Ivan Drago in Rocky IV). We watched in anger as Soviet Bloc referees showed blatant preferential treatment to the other guys. And we bought into the whole us versus them concept of sporting competitions (also fuelled by various Olympic boycotts.)

In the end, the games were far better simply because of the passion surrounding the game. When was the last time we were truly invested in the outcome of a hockey game like that? Sure, the recent Olympic and World Junior Championship victories have been fun, but they’re hardly memorable. Instead of a celebration of a defeat of an ideological opposite, it’s just a victory of our jocks against their jocks – who we now realize aren’t all that different.

Now 33 years old with a little more worldly knowledge, I know that people are people – and they always have been. I know that, in general, people everywhere want the same things out of life and that they shouldn’t be tainted by the colour of their political system. But back then – back when I was a gullible youth willing to believe what the world around me was telling me – I believed that the Soviets were different, mysterious, and dangerous.

That’s why watching this game will be so enjoyable. It’s a different time. The players will probably laugh and joke, embracing each other and the game they share. And it will be all the more poignant considering how different things were just two decades ago when many of these players were in their prime.

The on-ice camaraderie will show how much better and more tolerant the world is – at least as it relates to Canadian-former Soviet relations. And while we will celebrate a better world, I’ll also pause to remember how much greater the rivalry used to be.

After all, in the case of world relations as they relate to on-ice conflict, ignorance truly was bliss.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved