The Athletic Hockey Show - Harvard Women's ice hockey: alleged hazing and mistreatment of athletes, Pittsburgh Penguins fall out of playoff position, NHL partners with Fanatics as on-ice uniform fitter

Episode Date: March 21, 2023

Katie Strang, the Athletic's investigative reporter joined Craig Custance and Sean Gentille on The Athletic Hockey Show USA, to discuss her and Hailey Salvian's reporting on the hazing and abuse allegations directed towards Harvard's women's hockey team, the alleged abusive behavior by coach Katey Stone and how some of their alumni allegedly took part in hazing within the program and Craig, Sean and Katie talk about the independent investigation which is currently underway at Harvard University.Plus Craig and Sean take a look at the Florida Panthers who finally find themselves in a playoff position, the Pittsburgh Penguins who are in jeopardy of missing the playoffs for the first time in 16 seasons and the NHL's partnership with Fanatics as the leagues new official on ice uniform fitter ahead of responding to your questions, comments and concerns in the legendary third segment of the Tuesday boyzzz show. Subscribe to The Athletic Hockey Show on YouTube: http://youtube.com/@theathletichockeyshowStart making your financial dreams a reality with Chime. Get started at http://chime.com/nhlshow Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is the athletic hockey show. Hey, everybody. It's your friendly Tuesday host, Craig Custin's joined by my traveling mate, Sean Gentilly. It's been a while since that one, buddy. It's been a while since we traveled together, is what I'm saying. I know what you meant, Sean. I don't think you were paying attention to me. It's been a long week.

We've seen a lot of each other. We've seen a lot. Can you tell the bickering? We spent last week at the NHLGM's meeting. and we were in Boiton Beach because we couldn't afford to stay at the resort. That's right. We're staying at. And so I'm sure we'll get into some of that.

Our second segment is we were joined by Katie Strang who with Haley Salvean wrote, and I'm assuming everybody's read this, but if you haven't, the Harvard women's hockey story, you know, the Katie Stone story that got into some of the hazing and the traditions and just a mess there. And, you know, the news emerging yesterday on Monday that Harvard has hired Jenner and Block to investigate. So things are happening there. Yes, there's been real change.

It's been affected by those. By great reports. Yeah. Yeah. So definitely, I mean, that's going to be the meat of this podcast because that just ended up being a great conversation. Feel free to skip ahead to that if you'd like. Totally. But please, like put us on like times three.

Sean, I just want to say, I don't think we, the fact that we both traveled to the GMs, we didn't coordinate the travel that much aside from like, hey, where are you staying? And that you were my adjoining room. I've had a lot of time to think about that. And I, it seems like too much of a coincidence. Did I, did I call ahead and ask? Why were you knocking on the door between it? Oh, I don't know.

Did I, did I grease some palms to make this happen? And you checked in before I did actually. Maybe this is you. I'm not an assumed name too. I know all your alias is brother. Yeah, we stayed in an adjoining room. What? We were coming back.

We got dinner together. I checked in as Craigie America is my assumed name. It's Greg Gustance, actually. We came back from dinner on the first night, one of the two dinners we had together. And both got off on the second full. and walked down. Room 206 and room 208, baby.

What a special time? And I know producer Jeff is thinking, why don't you just record a podcast or segment or three so he doesn't have to do all the work. I guess. We didn't have to do. We gave each other a proper space, I thought. A lot of boundaries.

We gave each other space and also, and also a producer Jeff was on vacation at a wonderful undisclosed location, so we didn't want to bother him with anything. We wouldn't talk to. Like, I'm very done talking about the GM meetings, by the way. Don't ask me anything about that. Did you?

we can't talk about anything? How many times? I mean, you and Russo had a story today about the fighting after clean hits. I love that topic. Yeah, it's really interesting, isn't it? Yeah. No, I think it's good. I think people do care about it.

Like, people are like, oh, they got to answer. And I tweeted that story out this morning. People were like, hey, that's fine and good. But how do we know what a clean hit is in the moment? And I'm like, yeah, that's probably. That's probably, honestly, that was kind of the problem. We, uh, Russo, he and I have written a bunch of stuff

come out of the GM meetings. Most of it has been published. We still have one thing that we're going to do where we did some reporting down there that is yet to be written and yet to be published. But done a lot. Collaborated on most of it.

Russo held the pen on that one. He wrote and he wrote the majority of it. And of course, like, whatever. It's Russo. It's the wild. They have like one of the main I don't want to say perpetrators,

but one of the faces of this concept that there are fights after clean hits constantly, whatever, in Matt Dumba. So, of course, Russo led with a Matt Dumbba hit from a couple months ago when he hit somebody clean,

had to fight over. I think Svetakov was maybe involved with it. Great. Like, of course, that was the lead. Then, the micro-thens on Saturday, I think, I think is when he finished it. On Sunday, or Monday,

at some point between the time that Mike wrote his first lead about Matt Dunba fighting after a clean hit, Matt Dunba fought after another clean hit, and I think it was on Sunday. So he just reworked it and kind of tweaked it and made it apply to the other incident that Apple. Because this is something to have to Matt Dumba specifically, like...

Daily almost. Maybe every day. Thousands of times, maybe. So, yeah, it is, it's funny and it is a real, it's a problem. GMs hate it. Their main issue with it is that their main solution for it is not necessarily falling back on the instigator or calling the instigator more necessarily, which I think was kind of one of the surprises to come out of the discussions that we had with, with those guys.

as long as they get a power play out of it, they're cool. That's basically what it boils down to. So they're saying whatever mechanism it takes, whether you call roughing or in sportsmanlike conduct or in certain instances the instigator, like whatever that may be, if the end result is that the team that has the player who delivers the clean hit and then gets jumped after it

or whatever is forced to fight, as long as they have a power play coming out of it, like they're cool. They're not worried about I think that's okay About where it comes from Which I think is fine Which is fine

And it was also a little bit of a surprise Because like my question was like You know you hear about this And you say like okay well Isn't the easiest solution for that Just calling the instigator And like maybe it is But that's also for better or worse

Whether you agree with it or not That is not A route The GMs want to go down all that often Because it puts players out of commission For 17 minutes right Because they have the Right

They have the minor, they have the major, and then they have the misconduct. So whatever route we take, I guess, to that end where, you know, where players are actually penalized for starting something with, you know, with a guy after a clean hit, they're fine with. So, and I think that's like kind of the through line for the, for the piece. But, you know, actually taking that principle and actually applying it are kind of two different things. Big news today. This is great news for those in the, like, to buy jerseys and anything to wear from their favorite teams.

Ten-year deal between the NHL and Fanatics. Great news? Great news. Do you work for Fanatics now? I love Fanatics. Yeah. Have you ever bought anything from Fanatics? So I'll come clean.

I haven't. I've never bought anything from Fanatics. Well, my, call them on the topic is just gone live. Oh, really? Yeah, dude, Fanatic sucks. I have some bad news for you. their products terrible.

Most people don't like it. And they are now locked into a tenure deal with the NHL to be their official on-ice uniform supplier, which is, you know, the repercussions of that for players, like, they're going to get that right. The odds that these guys are wearing, you know, stuff that whatever irritates their skin, I guess. It's probably not going to happen, though I will say, I will say when Adidas was still making NBA uniforms. this is whatever 10 years ago at this point almost they made the ones with sleeves and players hated them because the sleeves were restricted or whatever and you have edith spends like a gazillion dollars huge huge marketing budget you know makes a big deal out of

like hey you can wear hoop jerseys with sleeves now buy them you know at the official NBA store run by fanatics by the players hated them and lebron james at one point tore the sleeves off the jerseys on the court. So like, it's not out of the realm of possibility that something happens that players like freak out in rebel over. It's happened recently in professional sports. Um, so whatever. Like, there's going to be an F logo on the back of NHL jerseys and they're going to say it's probably not that much is going to change for players. It's just a reminder of how shit this product is for people, for people who bought it, who've bought fanatic jerseys because they hate them because they're cheap and fall apart.

despite being $300 or $140 for the, for the replica one. They stink. People are upset about this. People are really upset about this. Because again, they're spending hundreds of dollars on a garment and the quality is not, is not what they expect. They're cheap. The fabric fades.

Washing them is tough. Letters peel off. Like, it's not good stuff. I bought, like, the lead of my column is about a T-shirt that I've bought from there that I hate it. I hate Fanatics. I'm mad. So it, and it's, from a business standpoint, it's interesting too, because Fanatics is like this, all of a sudden, it's this like omnipresent, you know, company that's trying to turn itself into the Amazon of sports openly because, you know, it's like Amazon started with books. Fanatics started with

T-shirts and baseball caps and whatever. And now they're moving into other spaces, whether it's fanatics with gambling or sports cards or whatever. They have a ton of funding raised $2 billion last year. So they're not going away anytime soon, right? The issue is that it's a shitty experience for consumers. It's almost the only, it's now functionally the only, the only place that you can buy NHL jerseys and people are not satisfied with the experience top to bottom, whether it's the price they pay or the way this stuff fits, the customer service experience or whatever. People generally don't like it.

And again, this is the company that the league has signed a 10-year deal with, by the way. So we'll see what happens with that. Is there any like, because Fanatics, I think a year ago, bought tops.

Like you said, it started out, hey, they're doing hats or whatever. I don't think it's great for fans if one company kind of controls everything fans are into buying. there's there's a kind of a monopoly aspect to it where you're like i don't know like if it's not good all of a sudden everything you like about kind of the periphery of sports and purchasing

things becomes a negative experience if it's not if you're not careful because one company controls it is and for better or worse it's also similar like they say this is like a positive thing in a business sense it is because god knows amazon is you know the 10,000 pound gorilla like globally but they say the amazon is sports like it's a good thing and that's and it's and it's it's not necessarily, like not from, for any number of reasons, right? Whether it's Amazon's treatment of its, of its warehouse workers or whatever, that sucks. Like that, that's not something you should want to openly compare yourself to. But from a more functional level, when it comes to, you know, the product that Fanatics is pushing is like, do you really like

shopping on Amazon now in 2023? Like, do you feel like that serves you well and you get good stuff and it's in it's like in it's and you get what you need from a quality standpoint from an experience standpoint it comes quickly it's fast it's fast it's fast it's a lot different it's a lot different to get like to pay $599 for a shower curtain because you need one and have it arrive in two days or whatever and you're like that's kind of cheap like whatever that principle should not apply to a $300 Colorado Avalanche jersey and it does and people are worse off for it and they're mad They don't like this company. They don't like its products.

It's something that they use because it's omnipresent and just, and they've done a good job of getting licenses and producing product quickly. It's basically it. So that's why they are where they are. And people generally are either neutral on it or actively dislike it because they've gotten junk from there. Some have been calling us the Amazon of Hockey Podcasts. I don't know if you heard that.

Bring this to today's sponsor of the Amnlaic. Sean, I want your thoughts on the pirate or pirate. My gosh. I do want you think about are they. They're not that bad. Good God.

The penguins, but we might have to say that for segment three because I don't want to put off this conversation of Katie because it was so good and important. So let's just get to that

and if you want to stick around with Sean and I is we kind of maybe the Florida Panthers making some noise. The penguins are a bit of a mass. America's team, the jets,

since about the moment we adopted them have kind of fallen apart. America's original team, the flames probably get in. And maybe at this point. So we'll get to all that in segment three, potentially. Maybe we won't. I can't make any promises.

But coming up next, Katie Strang, in a great conversation about the Harvard story in Katie Stone. We are now happy to be joined by Katie Strang. Katie, first of all, it's been way too long since you've been on the podcast. Oh, a long time. I just wish you would write something notable or worthy of a conversation. on the athletic hockey show occasionally. That would be helpful. If you haven't read it yet, listener, Katie and Haley Salvean wrote an incredible story

on the Harvard women's hockey team. Coach Katie Stone, the hazing, there's the culture, the weirdness. There's so much weirdness around that story, which I want to get into. But first, as tends to happen after Katie files something, there's a follow-up investigation. news emerged yesterday, I believe, that Harvard has hired law firm, Jenner, and Block to conduct a review of its women hockey program. A lot going on, Katie. So, first of all, thanks.

Thanks for joining us. Thanks for having me. And just to, you know, pump the tires of my co-author on this piece, Haley Salvean was such a force in reporting this. And so essential, I think, to our understanding of so much, like the context of the species. She has such a good reputation in the hockey world. I could not have done this story without her. So shout out to Haley Salvean. But yeah, so significant development on Monday in that, you know, about a week and a half after our initial story dropped, we learned

that Harvard had hired a pretty prominent, you know, white shoe law firm out of Chicago, Jenner and Block to conduct an investigation into concerns within the program. This follows our story, which, you know, contain allegations of, you know, an abundance of different types of misconduct. So hazing, insensitivity to, you know, mental health issues, mishandling injuries. just, you know, what I would categorize is like verbal and emotional abuse, mental manipulation, and just like a pretty general toxic environment within the team culture. Yeah. So I think what struck me about the follow-up news, and we'll get into the meat of the original story in a second,

but like I was like, oh yeah, I thought we already investigated this, Harvard. Right? Like it's like, hey, maybe that first crack at it. wasn't so thorough, apparently. Yeah, and I actually talked to a hazing expert on that, who used to serve, in fact, as a faculty athlete representative. And he talked about, you know, the impropriety, essentially, of conducting a review in that fashion, right?

Like, there's no buffer between the institution and the investigation. Now, they were very reticent. to call it an investigation. They called it, you know, conversations and a review. But, I mean, you know, certainly talking to players that participated in that, that was a concern for them, that, you know, it was, it was difficult for them to feel like they could speak freely and open up and be honest without, you know, this ever-present fear of reprisal in retribution.

So, you know, I think, yeah, Harvard took a crack. it in that fashion, I don't think that that review was sufficient. And so now I don't think it's any huge surprise that, you know, they're resorting to a much more robust probe of the program with an outside firm. This is like maybe kind of a basic question, but it's something that's stuck with me, especially reading your story and, you know, seeing how it's kind of unfolded over the last month or however long. What is it about Katie Stone that's given her cover for these actions? Like, why has their response, not just to your story, but previously?

Why has the response, why do you think the response from Harvard has been so muted? Because these are things, whether it's hazing, you know, what certainly seems like emotional abuse, total lack of success on ice in the recent past. What is it about her that's given her cover over the last however many years? Because it's hard, it's from the outside, it's hard to see. Like, what's the draw? Why does anybody like her? Yeah, that's a really good question.

And I think there are layers to that answer. You know, she has underwhelmed in terms of on-ice success recently. But, you know, there were times, especially early on, where, you know, she was a successful coach and someone who was really adept at leveraging the school's, you know, academic pedigree and its deep source of alumni to entice some of the top players at, the school. You know, when she came on the scene and she was hired in 94, like, Harvard was not this, you know, hockey juggernaut. Like, it wasn't a powerhouse. Like, that was still, like, you know, the domain of, like, UNH and Northeastern. And she really, like, thrust them into prominence. So, I mean, historically, like, she did have success. And then I think, you know, part of it is

almost like inertia. Like there's there's like this sense of like institutional continuity with her that she has been the personification of that the embodiment of Harvard hockey for so long that Harvard hockey has sort of been, you know, enmeshed, inextricably linked with Katie Stone and her personality. So, you know, and then I think the other thing is, you know, she hasn't, from my understanding in our reporting, I don't think she takes on nearly as an active role in recruiting as she did, you know, 10, 20 years ago. But she has done a very skillful job at, you know, developing this like very robust, powerful group of, you know, alumni. in a network of people who support her and support the program,

both, you know, just in ways financial and otherwise. And so I think she has a lot of people and remember that, you know, a lot of these alumni, they're, you know, really outstanding, like, professionals, like they're at the top of their building medicine, finance, um, you know, athletics. And, and so I think she has a lot of powerful people willing to go to the mat for her and vouch for her. And that's given her power. And she, she is, by the way, I mean, like I didn't, on ice, she's, and part of this, because she's been there for so long, but she is the all time leader and wins and women's collegiate hockey. So I, I, you know, didn't mean to make it out.

like there's been like any real, any true like long-term lack of success. But yeah, it's, it's, it's fun, it's funky to see like, oh, she's six and 13 this year. She's been like under 500 a bunch in the past. She's got horrific allegations of all sorts of abuse, like, credibly, credibly levied against her for months. Like, and I do think it's important to like realize that, you know, on-ice performance doesn't happen in a vacuum. In fact, you know, I don't, think we should be compartmentalizing the off-ice allegations with the on-ice performance because, you know, players have told us that essentially like part of the reason that teams fall apart down the stretch is that there's like such, there's this underlying undercurrent of tension in toxicity

within the room. So players are like pitted against each other. There's like some of these really toxic dynamics that really impacts the on-ice performance. And so, when they fade down the stretch, like, you know, people have said that that, there's, there's, that's, that's tied into some of the off ice concerns. I like that the underlying part of your question, Sean, is, you can almost tolerate this if they were 20 and three, but five and 19. I don't know. I'm out.

We've seen, I mean, but that's typically the way it goes with abusive coaches, is that if the results are there, they're tolerated. It's true. It's not, it's not. Is it right? Of course not. But when the results start to dip is when there's institutional pressure, tends to be internalized pressure,

whether it's from alumni or from the athletic director or from the president or from somebody other than the players to make a change. And that to me is what's like that, there's a lot of things that differentiate this from normal allegations of like, of, you know, kind of of this, of this type. You know, you don't see, you don't see everyday coaches the programs compared to running the Stanford Prison Experiment, which is, which is, which is, which is just a evocative, mind-boggling quote.

Right. From, from one of the players you, you two, you two spoke to. But there's something about this and something about the, and this is kind of what I was, what, what I was getting at. And I think you laid it out there. There's something about the university response to this that is so different and so far apart from even things from things that we've seen in recent history when it comes allegations like this.

The rallying behind her is the part that is wild to me. And we've seen, especially in the last 10 years, as we've seen more and more coaches lose their job for out for, for allegations that are far less serious than the ones that she's facing. That's what's just, that's what's, that's what's endlessly been crazy to me, you know, for as I've watched this kind of unfold in your work. So one thing that I'm not as surprised about is like whenever I, you know, report on situations that involve allegations of abuse, invariably, like the first story involves, you know, the perpetrator, you know, alleged victims. You know, the incidents in question, et cetera, and almost always like the the second story or the subsequent stories honing on sort of like the institutional protectionism. And so I'm not ever really surprised when a university prioritized reputational protection over, you know, the well-being of.

players. And I hope that will not be the case here. I think them, you know, hiring an outside law firm to investigate that is an important first step. However, there's a lot about this investigation that is unclear at this point. For example, I have asked Harvard, do you pledge to make the findings of this report public? Transparency is. a key component to any like robust investigation, um, in terms of its credibility and potential impact. I have asked, like, what is the scope that you task, Jenna and Block with investigating? You know, I want to know if it's going to be super narrow. Like, are you, are you just looking into hazing? Are you just looking into hazing within the past year? Are you looking into the broader

constellation of concerns and allegations that are included? in our story, are you going to be reaching out to former players? If former players reach out to you, are you willing to interview them? What sort of confidentiality are you going to provide potential whistleblowers in this situation, which that's what a lot of people, like, that's the dynamic that people are facing? Another big question for me, is Katie Stone going to be required to participate in this investigation? Is athletic director Aaron McDermick going to be required to participate in this investigation. I think those are really key components.

We have asked Harvard to provide clarity on those ends, and we got a no comment. We should say just straight away, but before we get any further into this, if the name Jenner and Block sounds familiar to any hockey fans out there, they are the firm that put together the report on the Chicago Blackhawks internal failures when it came to the alleged abuse by Brad Eldridge against Kyle Beach. So that's where you've heard,

Jenner and Blanc before. And it resulted in a $2 million fine. Yes. And, you know, people resigning. And, you know, there were real consequences. Real consequences. And like what you said, Katie, it started out as, hey, here's the story of the victim. And then it became, here's the story of how the organization tried to protect itself.

And that's exactly. Exactly. Like that, you know, the Blackhawks, there is a parallel there. You said, there's two things you said that struck me. Like, one, the idea of dividing a team, like dividing a team as a mental way to, I guess, gain control over the room and is a really bizarre way to operate. It's not even effective. Like, I would like to know where, at what point do you go? If I can turn the players against each other, we're going to win a ton of games. Like, again, That's really bizarre to me. And then you touched on the alumni. This to me, I wanted to read a whole story on the alumni. Yep. Can we just talk about the black dresses and the sunglasses and the weird normal, normal person stuff? Yeah.

Yeah. So let me unpack both of those things. Sorry, that's a lot there. Wait, remind me what the first thing was. Just dividing the team in half so you can try to win games as a strategy. You know, it's interesting because. You know, one thing, let me say this. Like, you know, I primarily, you know, my entire job is essentially to cover like abuse and misconduct in sports.

I deal a lot in like sexual abuse and like some really heavy, gnarly, difficult stuff. Which is not to say that I'm desensitized to it because I'm not. I can, but I am. I can confirm that you are not deansitized to it now. But I deal with it a lot. And what I can tell you and what Haley would tell you is that we were blown away by both the scope and the scale of the trauma that we encountered when reporting this story. You know, stuff that like, you know, just hits so hard for so many people, people grappling with, you know, like repressed trauma or non-repressed trauma, like over decades. And so I do, you know, want to underscore just like the depth of this issue.

Like, you know, I have heard people sort of try to like, you know, undermine some of these players' concerns and, you know, paint them as like, you know, whiny players that didn't get enough playing time and didn't get their way. Like there was not, you know, we have now talked to over three dozen, like, people, players within the program, people associated with the program. There was not one person that, like, said Katie Stone was too tough. No one's bitching about, like, being bag skated. No one's saying she's yelling too much. What I would say impacted players the most, you know, for some players, like the hazing was really traumatic. But what I would say was more universal was the low grade, everyday incremental death by a thousand. cuts, microaggressions, and toxicity.

I think that's because it was harder to identify. It took on a more amorphous shape. There's more ambiguity. There's more gray. We really tried to show the spectrum of like escalation in some of these behaviors so that people could understand. Like it doesn't just start out like you get thrown into a team and you're just like being terrorized or torment.

like that that it happens very gradually and incrementally. And then all of a sudden you're in this like full blown, you know, what some people describe as like the Stanford Prison Experiment where you feel like your every move is being controlled and monitored and every weakness and insecurity that you have is being weaponized against you. And it is like such a destabilizing force that you have a fundamental loss of like your own identity. And it makes you like doubt your own instincts.

It makes you think that this behavior is normal. It makes you think that to be a part of this team, you must accept this type of behavior. So I have never seen like this element of like control within a team like down to the most absurd minutia. And then Craig, I'm super glad that you brought up the alumni because I was so disturbed by the fact that, you know, in a lot of of these hazing incidents and initiation nights, alumni, like professional, working professionals, grown women, come back to participate in behavior that I think a lot of the people that talk to us would describe as degrading, humiliating, and dehumanizing. Like, that to me was so profoundly distressing and disturbing.

to learn. And I think it tells you a lot about the culture of the program and what is deemed acceptable and how deep some of this behavior runs. And we're still trying to unpack that. And we really wanted to write about the culture of hazing in the context of, you know, these girls and women are part of a program where many of them have, you know, talked about how deeply like distressing problematic, toxic it was. And so, you know, these factions form, players are pitted against each other. They're, you know, some of the players that are in her favor are being deputized to, you know, fairy information about the latter.

groups that are not in her favor and like you know provide morsels of information and like a lot of stuff that felt like really like psychological um abuse you know i think what is how a lot of people would describe it um so you know to when you're in it i think it's really it's really hard to see how potentially problematic the behavior is. And we had a lot of those conversations with people where they'd like start talking about it. And then like, you know, we'd be like kind of shocked by what they'd say. And then they'd be like, is that weird? And we'd be like, yes.

Yes. That's super weird. I've never heard something like that before. So, I mean, it just goes to show you like that. you know, when you're in it, I think it's really hard to recognize. And so what I think we have is like a pretty significant group of players who have like come through that program who are grappling with what they endured and like forming different relationships with their experience there, now that they have a bit more perspective and distance from being in it. I think you definitely answered part of this already, but the naked skate specifically, why is that, I think that's central to understanding the culture here in the story you guys wrote about it.

And I mean, it's you wrote it. It's your work. Why do you think that's kind of part of the bulwark here for both the story and also the program in the environment that she's created there. Sure. Well, one, I think it's a really important, like, symbolic thing to understand that traditions were really prioritized in this culture. And the continuation of traditions, like alumni felt deeply invested that the traditions that they helped form in, you know, carry out were continued.

And someone described it to me as that that was Katie Stone's power, that she was able to provide like a bridge between players of decades past to players, you know, present with shared experience. Now, I want to make it clear we have not reported on any direct evidence that. that she directed any of this behavior or, you know, condoned this behavior or participated. But what I mean is, like, culturally speaking, in a more global fashion, you know, tradition and the, like, continuation of tradition was a main feature of this program. And Naked Skate was one of those things that, you know, we have talked to people that played 25 years ago that did this.

that they're still doing this. And to be clear and to be fair, you know, there are plenty of people who thought it was fun, thought it was innocuous, that nine were apathetic towards it. There are a number of people who felt differently. And, you know, there were some people who said, I had the option not to do it. I sat out. But hazing actually, you know, I've talked to some hazing experts. And they've said, like, hazing is not dictated by whether or not the upperclassmen also participate. And it's also not dictated by whether or not the participation was voluntary. Because in a team dynamic like that, the peer pressure is often so significant that it serves as like a coercive quality and that, you know, the pair of being ostracized and shunned and alienated

from your teammates plays such a mitigating factor in participation. And, you know, I think one of the things that we felt it was important to signify also was a level of institutional hubris. I mean, there, so one day after the Boston Globe, which did a great, great job breaking the story out into the open, by the way. Bob Holerson, a fantastic investigative writer. One day after that story ran, and by the way, that story did contain allegations of hazing within the program, they did a naked skate. And, you know, one player became very upset. The coaching staff was notified, and they, you know, essentially told the team, this is not a sanctioned or permissible.

activity. So I think it goes to show you that, like, one, these traditions are so firmly entrenched, and there are so many people that feel so deeply invested in seeing them continue, that I don't think there's a ton of introspection about the potential harm that it may cause. And I think there is such a level of institutional hubris that, you know, they're not being forced to really reckon with some of these things that may have been acceptable or not heavily scrutinized in decades past but are no longer considered acceptable. And also like down the list as far as institutional hubris is concerned that this is like textbook NCAA uh this is hazing like this is definitionally hazing based on based on the NCAA's own standards and that it's 100% and also

it's it's it's hazing's illegal that's what I'm saying like this is this is this is this is an act that's illegal in the state and it's prohibited by the NCAA and there have been serious serious uh repercussions and sanctions placed on teams for doing stuff like this and that it's still you know signed off in a meaningful way by people associated with that, with the program. I wanted to highlight something you said, Katie, and this is maybe just a comment, not a question, but you talked about death by a thousand cuts, and we've talked about this, but I, I appreciated how you laid it all out there, even in a way that you knew would open

yourself up for criticism, you and Haley, like, here's the things that the coach did. And if you read it, sometimes you're like, oh, she was asking what they were eating. that's a coach that cares about the player's diet. And she wanted them there 10 minutes early. Hey, I like that. I want my team to be prompt. You know what I mean? I think it would have been easy just had been like, hey, naked skates and whatever.

But then you just start to add it up. Like, I would be curious. It's the most effective illustration of like the danger of microaggressions that I can remember reading. Because those things like Craig said, taken out of content. text, taking in a vacuum, hearing that, you know, she said, she did thing A or did, or did thing B, it's easy to, even if you're, even if you're acting in good faith, if you're not a person who's coming into this, like, looking, like, looking for, you know, looking for problems, you can see that

and think like, okay, like, that sucks, but, you know, you're divorced from context, you know, maybe, maybe to understand it. And that, to me is, of this story's many successes, that's at the top of the list, is kind of, in a TikTok almost sort of way, you get the sense of like, the erosion of the sense of self, honestly,

for a lot of these girls. And that's not a question. That is absolutely just a comment. But that's a tough thing to get across, I think, in coverage like this. Because people hear microaggressions, they hear that term and they automatically, especially, especially like bad faith actors, then snowflakes is not going to be far behind, right?

Like that's just, that's like the trigger word for the, for those kind of people. And it's tough to, uh, illustrate that effectively sometimes. And I think you guys manage that in the, in the, in the, in the space you took. Well, thank you. I mean, that credit to our editor, George Dorman, who's like brilliant in helping, you know, guide us and shepherd us through these stories. I mean, that was certainly a central focus for him. Like, like I said, we felt like, you know,

showing the more egregious examples was important, but also like the banalities as well in trying to show like the spectrum of how behavior escalates, you know, becomes this environment that is so all-consuming that, you know, for some players, They had to, you know, I, listen, I do think that some players had really positive experiences. I do. We've heard from multiple, and I believe them, that they had positive experiences.

And I'm happy for those people that did. But there are many people who did not. And, you know, I think for a lot of people, they just had felt like they had to survive. and then I think there were some people who did the risk calculus in their head and thought, I can't survive actually in the context of this team. And as a result, they left. And which is part of why, you know, we did focus on the attrition and especially recently that, you know, there have been a number of players who walked away.

And we certainly talked to a number of players that felt like it was necessary to walk away to preserve their own mental health that, you know, multiple players said they had to take a year off of school to focus on their mental health. Multiple players discussed, you know, dealing with and grappling with potential self-harm. And, you know, to everyone that thinks, like that, again, that this is just a few players who, can't take healthy criticism. This is not that. And also, and also,

like, as far as the hazing stuff is concerned, like there's, I mean, of course there are people that are okay with it. That's what makes it hazing. That's what hazing is. It creates,

and it creates another group of people that, you know, it, it warps people's, you know, like, barometers on that sort of stuff. And then they do it again.

And it, and it continues. So one fascinating conversation I had with a hazing expert, which was illuminating but also surprised me, which she was like, oh yeah, actually alumni participation in hazing is quite frequent, especially like in the Greek context. And she's like, you know, when, especially like in a sorority or a finals club or a team setting, like so much of your identity is, you know, entrenched to. in terms of your participation with that group. So like, you know, you feel you have had something done to you. And then you have probably at one point of this cycle been a bystander. And then perhaps at one point of this cycle, you've been a perpetrator. And you feel like it is your duty to pass this along.

And that, you know, whenever we hear talk of like, you know, family or like, team first that, you know, that that signifies that the, the sense of community is sort of central to this idea, this idea of belonging, that these are my people, this is my tribe, this is my culture, it is incumbent upon me to make sure that, you know, all these traditions and costumes of that community continue. And so in that context, alumni participation perhaps shouldn't be particularly surprising. However, I still find it. And like, I mean, I was gobsmacked by it.

Is there anything else about the story that you want people to understand that, you know, that maybe as it's surfaced and been circulated and been talked about or commented on, like that this jump talking, you'd be like, I want you to realize this. I mean, we try to report every story with nuance. And so I think there are a number of people who had really positive experience with this program. I know that there are a number of people who had negative experiences with the program. I think there's a number of people who had positive experiences,

but have the depth of understanding that other people's did not. but I guess, you know, one of the hurdles for us in reporting the story was people are scared of speaking about this because they're fear of retribution and reprisal. And I think to some degree, you know, I don't think anyone's scared of like Katie Stone knocking on their door or calling them up. I think there's some people that are, you know, scared of, you know, potential you know, Harvard's a powerful institution.

And so I think some people are scared of that potential ramification. But I would say by and large, one thing that has struck me is that I think there's this fear of like being excommunicated by people that were your friends and teammates. I think the real fear is that like you're cut off from a lifeline of your community. And so I do think we're seeing like real division there right now. I think there are some people who are really reflecting on their experiences and being open-minded and listening to others. I think there are some that are not.

And I would just caution people, you know, to remember that, you know, what we have encountered here is a great deal of harm and trauma and suffering. And maybe some people have said I think that's a minority But to me it's like Well how many do you need? Yeah what's how many is okay in that scenario

How many is okay If somebody's listening and they wanted to reach out to you And share their story what's the best way for them to get a hold of you? Yeah, email Katie at theathletic.com Or you can reach out to me on Twitter. My DMs are open Um,

Haley has I think her contact info as well. But, you know, we, we are pursuing follow-up stories on this. There's a lot there to unpack. And we plan to keep going as long as we need. Well, thanks for joining us, Katie. Thanks for your great work on the story. All the, all the work you're doing constantly. It's just an incredible story, Sean. I mean, you, you and I have talked a lot about. We spent an entire dinner at the GM's meetings talking only about the story and what stood out. it's, I mean, it's not the end. That's totally true.

I wish there was like, I wish we had, we could break down the time we spent at that goofy restaurant, that goofy place on the pier in Palm Beach, like hammering fish tacos. Like, what percentage of that dinner between you and I was talking about the work that Haley and Katie did is solid? 90? I was going to say like 80, 80 or 85? Because we don't actually want to talk about the key lime pie and whether or not we were going to split one. Do we want to talk to each other about each other's lives?

What's going on? Family stuff. No. Normal conversation. No, baby. Work. Other people's work. Other people's work that is much better and much more important than ours.

So, yeah, it's just, you know, those are two people who it's, who it's an honor to work with. And I think, I think we got a nice, nice, nice taste of that. Yeah. If you haven't read it, I mean, I hope you, as a listener, go check the story out, follow it along. And again, I would encourage anybody to reach out to Katie if you have not just Harvard experiences anything. I mean, this is, I'm sure if it hasn't happened already, this is, you know, these are stories that need to be told. These are reporters that are speaking truth to power. And it's important work for us at the athletic.

And yeah. Those two are in it and they're in this story for the long haul. and there's more coming. And if you're interested in it, or if you like Haley or Katie, I would say to maybe tune in to NBC News tonight. There's something coming there on Tuesday night. How about that?

How about that for a tease? All right. Big scoop. More importantly, segment three is coming up. This is the only good segment on the show. It's when we jump in the comments, read everything you guys write, whether it's positive or negative or neutral or what have you.

We take all of it to heart. We love you all individually, no matter who you are. Before we do that, though, something we wanted to get into in the first segment that we kind of ran out of time on because we wanted to get you to Katie as quickly as possible because God knows that's what's important. the Pittsburgh Penguins are in trouble. They are officially out of a wildcard spot this morning after, oh boy, scoring one goal on a goaltender for the Ottawa Centers whose name I cannot remember at the moment who is starting his first NHL game.

That kind of coupled with another win by the Florida Panthers has Florida in the number two spot behind the Islanders in the Eastern Conference wildcard. You know who called that, by the way, Sean? Who called the Florida Panthers at this point? Matthew Kachukh. Oh, yes. Flip-flop man himself. He said, hey, don't worry about it, folks.

We're going to be fine in mid to late March. Everyone relax. Do you know how good Sergei Bobrovsky has been over the last little bit? We did one of our all 32, you know, NHL all 32 things where we talked to every beat writer, some national football. folks get in where, you know, weigh in on the, on the topic at hand of the topic of the week. The one for over the weekend was which player has the most to prove down the stretch for a given team. And I said, Sergey Bobrovsky, which is, of course, he always does because

that's what happens when you sign a $10 million, $10 million contract. And he's been fantastic. he's been he's been really good and it's after three months of being really bad and kind of putting the panthers behind the eight ball with being certainly more average than you than you need from a ten million dollar guy so now he's warmed up they've always been a good five on five team the penguins are well and truly in the tank after after this last road trip that they went on where they lost twice to the rangers and now came home lost to the centers so they're in trouble um And this is the first time really that I've thought, this is the most seriously I've given consideration to the idea that the playoff streak,

which is at 16 years or whatever it is, is over. Because that's a deeply fled team. And all it was ever going to take was someone playing well behind them. And right now it's the Florida Panthers. So that's something to watch. I'm glad it's happening because we need it. We need meaning to these games over the next few weeks. And we got it.

Yeah. Like this is it. Look, 16 years, this goes, like we only know, you and I've only covered an NHL that has Sydney Crosby and the Penguins in the playoffs. Like that's, it's just the right of spring. It's the way it goes.

It's, I know people don't want to hear this, but it's not great that this team is, this is what's happening to the Penguins. It's just not, like, Sid needs to be on that stage. I,

you know, I think maybe it's the best thing for them, maybe in the short term, to miss a year and have a wake-up call that whatever patches are being put into place aren't working. Yeah, but... It's a flawed... It's a deeply flawed roster that shuffled a lot of stuff at the trade deadline and didn't

improve in any meaningful way, right? When you clear a bunch of caps base, and Adam Michael Greenland, who's been completely ineffective, Jeff Carter got old, that's a big thing too, and now they have a bunch of injuries at defense. So their third pair last night was Taylor Fadoon and Mark Friedman, right? where if you're in a playoff race, not a good, not a good,

not a good, uh, not a good, uh, not a good, uh, not a good ball to be stuck behind. So fun, but like I said, man, it'll be interesting to watch,

but also if you're, if you're a Penguins fan, I, I've, how about this? I have never, I've lived here for nearly all of my life, most of my adult life.

I have never, never seen the fan base of, half is angry about the direction of that team is they are right now. It's people are pissed. And part of that's because they're spoiled. And I don't even, I don't even say it.

Also, Josh is riling them up. Josh Yoey with his daily. I think Josh and Josh and Josh and, sure, Josh and Rob Gastonville. Yeah, sure. A little bit. But that is also, that's all, I'm telling you, that's also that those dudes know the temperature of the fan base

better than anybody and they can sense how pissed off these people are. And so can I. And people are like, you just anecdotally, conversations I have with my friends or whatever, my family, people are mad. And part of it's because they've been spoiled over the last however many years, which is just part of the way that it goes.

But also there should be legitimate concern for the direction of this franchise over the next couple years in the last couple years of Sidney Crosby, Gennie Malkin and Crystal Tanks Prime because it doesn't seem like they have any. You know who did make a significant move to get better at the trade deadline or near the trade deadline, the New York Islanders? And everyone was like, what are they doing? they're going to get in. Yeah.

I'd pick them over the over the Penguins at this point for sure. I would too. All right. All right. Let's get to the questions. I feel like we're right. Patrick G.

I just wanted to say to Patrick G. Personally, welcome to the comment section. Patrick G. Yeah, buddy. 18 months of looking. 18 months. Searching. Searching and finally found the thread.

So good job, Patrick. Patrick also says, It's a shame we can't get Craig on here consistently. I'll take low energy, Craig, every week if it means he shows up for Tuesdays each week or each month. Shout out to producer Jeff, of course. The brains behind. Craig, you're going to write another column on what books folks are reading. I loved that story.

We were just talking about that with somebody the other day. No, to answer the question, because I don't write anymore. Fingers on my fingers as we know. But that was a fun thing. I might link that out. You farm that one out. Can farm that one out to me. That's happening multiple times over the last few weeks, by the way.

It's like, I've had an idea and been like, that Craig did that like four years ago. The problem with that story was I just said, hey, let me get a hundred book recommendations from people in hockey. Just sounded like a good number. I like to write things in headlines oftentimes. And that's how, I like that. I can promote that.

You know, it was hard, like, a pain in the butt to do. A hundred, 100 book wrecks. Like, that's a lot of people to go to in hockey. I should have just said 50. it would have been so much easier and not you got to go with an uneven number that's one of the buzzfeed tips that's kind of that's kind of hit you should have gone like 51 or something

also Michael D we're a hit on the on the YouTube's we're not Michael D writes first time watching the Tuesday boys on the athletic hockey show on the YouTube the difference between Craig and Sean is amazing Craig is more stone face than an Easter Island statue when Pierre talks meanwhile Sean is a bundle of endless energy.

It's because I'm paranoid. I'm so scared to leave the little skinny. You shouldn't see. The Katie one is probably, I'm like, I'm just frozen in time. That's all I'm thinking about, don't leave the split screen. Craig is, Craig is a coward. Craig is a coward and I have impulse control problems. That's it.

You just disappear. Like, I was going to be like, the person in screen three. It's a better experience when you're actually having a conversation than it is to like, to then to converse with someone who's sitting up straight, like, you know. You think I made peer uncomfortable with how? Yeah, I do. He told me afterwards. There's a few comments about our, we wanted, we made a call to the NHL to change their

combine, work in some actual hockey events. Ryan W. said, I'll fall on the no thanks side of a combine style of the NHL for the NHL. I think the NFL version is pretty gross and a let's make these children run and jump around for free and pretend like it matters more than game footage while we schmooze corporate and media sponsors kind of way. Do you want to respond to that to Ryan W? Ryan, that was a long comment and I kind of zoned out for part of it.

Oh, wow. Oh, geez. No, I'm just, I'm just kidding. I, um, I'm just agrees with you. I'm joking. I think, um, on that level, yeah, sure. Do I think the NFL Combine is stupid? Yeah, sure. But a lot of the work of building buzz around a league in increasing, in building attention and whatever, a lot of that is stupid work. So we can sit here and laugh about, you know, whatever, the NFL schedule release dominating a week of the news cycle every, every summer. But it works. Like, do I, like, do I personally care whether, whether, you know, the NHL does a good job of marketing itself? No, I don't. It doesn't matter to me. Like, I'm not, I'm not an NHL. Like, I'm not personally hurt that the NHL signed a deal with fanatics and I think it's stupid. Like, I'm not hurt on their behalf, right? I think, I think it underserved fans. I think, I think fans miss out on it. I don't know that, so I, so I kind of apply that same logic, I suppose, to, um, the combine. Because,

whether you think it's stupid or not, whether you think the NFL Combine is stupid, people love watching it. So I'm not trying to account for my taste. I'm trying to, like, pull it out and say that there's something that people, it might not be my cup of tea to sit there and watch, you know, Colizia Clancy do the shuttle run or whatever at the NFL,

at the NFL Combine, but a lot of people enjoy it. And it generates a lot of news and people care about it. So, yeah, I, like, I can see past my, own sort of interests, I think, on that one. But I get it.

I get why people don't like it. Like, of course. But more people like it than don't. And that's the point. And I think it draws attention to the people being drafted. The players being drafted. I think that's good. I think it's fun when fans have opinion on who the team takes in the NHL.

Like, we're pretty informed. And you start getting in a round two or whatever. And it's like, I don't feel that. Like, our fans feeling that strongly besides the diehard? If you pay any amount of attention to the NFL, think of all the players. even in this past year, a few weeks ago that you were introduced to via the NFL Combine. Do you think that many people were watching Florida football games last year and realized that Anthony Richardson is a physical marvel who should be taken in the top half of the first round

of any draft he's in? No. You think the kid from Ohio State who's the offensive tackle whose arms are 10 feet long or whatever, people don't know who that is. But now, whenever those guys do get drafted, like there's going to be a buzz around the selection on the day that it happens and be people who's fans, you know,

teams whose fans, you know, oh my God, that was horrible. And B, and B, fans of the teams that actually actually do, do, do, do. Fans of the teams who actually take these guys are going to be immediately familiar with their team's first round pick. that's not a bad thing.

As corny as I think it is to sit there and obsess over you know, vertical leaps and hand sizes and whatever else. Like, that's why we do this. Like,

it's, like, it's fun for a lot of people. And that's reason enough to do it. Anyways. Fanatics could put out like a card set of all the draft combine winners and losers

and you can buy them and trade them. Philip R. The fanatics official NFL, NHL draft Cambine hat. by not. I'm struggling the day. Philip R. wants to trade Sean for Shana.

Yeah, based on Shana's appearance. And then later on in the comments, I think it's somebody else says, no, let's trade Craig. Chris J wanted to trade me for, and futures, though, so at least you got to throw in

a little something else for Shana. I think we all can agree. Shana should be a regular. In fact, Tuesdays. Just trade both of us for her. How about that? That's the, that's the move that was a disgusting. Kevin T.

Can we have more SGB? saying the word seismic. Is that, am I saying that wrong? Seismic. Is it seismic? I don't know that. Seismic. I said seismic.

I think that might be a regional thing. Anytime you can't just, anytime you mispronounce something, it's not a regional thing, Sean. Lancaster or whatever you were trying to say. Lancaster. Lancaster. That's what people call it.

That's a regional thing. Yo, Lancaster hive, stand up, reach out. that's how that's how they said don't I might just be mispronouncing things you are pick another question

I'm gonna look into this Sean Kevin T already Kevin T phonetically spelled it out for you Kevin I trust you

also it just means you read a lot Sean and you don't talk a lot that's what that means you're learning the language through reading yeah that's what I've been told my entire life when I've mispronounce the word I get it Yeah, I don't think there's an alternate pronunciation here. That's just me making a mistake.

There's not. Fair enough. There's no regional. There's not a bunch of regional pronunciations. South Western PA pronunciation of seismic. Of all the words. Jesse W. thinks the Tuesday boys should just do the Vesna of the week.

Oh, Monday does. There's Jack Adams winner of the week because all that matters is goalies, as we know. And we talked about at length. Mm-hmm. Allison H writes, when you make your U.S. versus Canada teams, we're going to do that next time. Pierre comes on. You need a neutral third party to decide the winner. You know, like a Swedish, Swedish, Swiss or Finnish person. Swedish? Swish. Swinfish? It's a common, someone who's equal part Swedish Finnish and Spanish. We need to end this podcast. We're just, we're like permanently. My goodness.

Yeah, I'd be down with that. I think we could get a, get a Swede, get a Swede involved. also do we how does Jesse how does the Wednesday show not do the Veson of the week or whatever it's Jesse's Jesse's thin he's a goalie freak

a real goalie sicko leave that for him question for the future real year 2000 vibes in the year 2000 you're going to go high with the second verse in the year 2000 which team should be the most disappointed

about making the play as they're shot at the crown now in the future is drastically less than what it was on trade deadline day. I think Nashville sneaking in last year to get steamrolled by the abs because they have no goalie. They might be... I mean, Nashville. I don't think it's out of the question that Nashville does it again. They're like all of a sudden kind of relevant. But the good part for them is that they sold whatever, is it they sold whatever they could.

But yeah, I mean, they woke up the day. They woke up, my God, I'm a disaster today. They woke up today five points outside of a playoff spot, but with three games in hand on America's team, on America's Canadian team to win a peg Jots. Which like, it's doable. It's not likely, but it's possible. So I'm going with Nashville again.

Yeah. Yeah, I think it is Nashville. I rented David Poil at the GMs and we were just chatting and he was remarking, you know, like just how busy still is post-dedline. He's like, you know, we're in this playoff race. I'm like, are you? And then I looked. He's right.

Dude, I came back from Florida. Me and Dom, I flew back. I was, you know, back really, really late on Wednesday night. Woke up. Thursday is always a long day. They got to record and got to do power ranks and stuff. It's like the long day of the week for me. I hadn't really paid a ton of attention to the games for the previous few days because of the GM meeting stuff.

me and Dom sit down and do power rankings and he said something like about how you know basically the pride's like have a chance and I did the same thing and I was like are you what? Time out. What happened? It's partially because the jets have fallen apart but whatever.

But I think you I mean they weren't going to win it anyway so that's like the best of both worlds. You got your future at the deadline you get your playoff gate and then get steam rolled by whoever. There's no player that they could have conceivably moved at the deadline that they held on to to their detriment, right?

Like if they really want to hit the red button and trade UC Soros or Roman Yossi or whatever, if that happens, any deal of that magnitude almost always is a summer deal anyway. Like they're not going to have less value, you know, in June than they do than they do today. So yeah, hold off, you know, you know, totally, totally detonated down the road. That's fine. But they did the work that they needed to do. If only in the form of the Tanner Genoa deal. Holy cow.

Great deal. All right. This is already going really long. So I think we can end with this one unless you see something. And there's a lot of comments. And we appreciate everybody stepping up. And even the people that were like disappointed in our lack of hockey analysis. I'm looking at you, Thomas F.

Didn't like that. We didn't dive deep in hockey analysis in last week's episode. We appreciate everyone who left the comment. Really good questions. Michael P. had to pause a show to ask, is Vlad Tarasenko really a Hall of Famer? Honestly, had not considered this since his early career hype.

And that's in reference to we were talking about, it really doesn't matter what you do at the trade deadline because your chances of winning a Stanley Cup isn't increase that much. And I kind of casually said, the Rangers went out and got two Hall of Famers in Tarasenko and Patrick Kane. I think it was a little bit hyperbolic to prove a point. But is Vlad Tarasenko a hallfamer, Sean?

Did I miss me? No, but I think he's right below the line. I think at this point, probably not. He just lost too many prime years to their shoulder issues and whatever. I think he's like, I think he's like just under to me. But he's one of those guys that if I were in the room and I was in there with whatever, if it's 20 years down the line and Jeremy Rutherford is making the case for Vladimir Teresenko in a, in a Hall of Fame, you know, boardroom, I could probably.

probably be swayed. Like, I think, I think, I'm, I'm, I'm amenable on it. Like, I feel like he's right below the line, but it's not out of the realm of possibility that A, he puts together a couple more good years to bolster the rep and B, that, you know, that I couldn't be pushed into the pro camp there. Yeah, I probably, I think he's, I don't think he is. Um, so I, I would say I probably misspoke or I was just trying to make a point, but, like, how many top 10, It was hyperbole, whatever. Like, it's just the way people. No, I think I should be held accountable.

He has no top 10 finishes in Hartvote. Not that that matters. But like, you know, you want your Hall of Famers to be the best of their era and maybe have a couple years where they were unquestionably the best of their position or whatever. Hockey Hall of Fame, maybe that's a higher standard than the hockey Hall of Fame currently has because there's certainly players that don't fit that. But in my Hall of Fame, I don't think Tarasenko is yet. I think if you, like what I put Vladimir Tarasenko into my personal Hall of Fame, no.

But there are a lot of guys gotten in the Hockey Hall of Fame. That's a big tent hall at this point. Unless you're a cold tender and then you're screwed. I don't know. I think, I don't think he gets in. I don't think I would put him in. But it's also not like some, I don't think it's like a farcicle, you know, claim to make either. He was great when the Blues Win the Cup.

Just a tank hit and everything. shooting a million shots every game. So, like, I have that. I picture Teresanko in that run. Peak, Periscanco is so good. So good. It was just short. That's just, like,

tough luck. Are we done? Rob Pizzo, Mike, we're done. I was already going into the promos. Rob Pizzo, Mike Russo, and Jesse Granger. Welcome Matt Boldie to Minnesota Wilde to the Wednesday roundtable. Also, you mentioned YouTube. Don't forget to subscribe to the athletic hockey.

show on YouTube. YouTube.com slash at the athletic hockey show. You can watch how much Sean likes to move around. I used to. I corrected. I over corrected some might say. That's how you sit all the time now. It sucks.

At dinner. People are like, is your neck okay? Hey, what's going on, buddy? Yeah, like you're in a, like you're in a brace.

A massage? Hey, great guest next week. The recently retired Brianna Decker is going to join us. Excited about that one. And happy New Year, Sean. Great to hang out with you last week.

C-plus. Hanging out? It was great. It was great. His tacos are good.