A New Twist to a Raging Debate

The startling piece in the latest edition of Maclean's magazine in which Mike Sanderson, the father of the late Don Sanderson, speaks his mind on the issue of fighting in hockey truly puts the godfather of fighting on skates, Don Cherry, in a desperate light.

While Cherry has insinuated that Mike Sanderson, despite the death of his 21-year-old son after a hockey fight while playing for the Whitby Dunlops, still supports the notion that fighting is an integral part of the sport, the elder Sanderson says that actually isn't true at all.

Even worse, he objects to Cherry's characterization of him as a friend and kindred spirit who was there at Don Sanderson's funeral in Port Perry, Ont and later pronounced to a national TV audience that Mike Sanderson is a "hockey guy" who understands the role of fighting in hockey.

“He said we sat there like we were buddies (at Donald’s funeral),” Sanderson says in the Maclean's article written by Charlie Gillis. “I’m, like, no we didn’t.”  

While some have been accused of using the death of Don Sanderson to further the effort to ban fighting from hockey, Sanderson's father seems to feel he's the one who has been used by those who would see the practice continue. Mike Sanderson says he supports a regulation that would lead to automatic ejections for fighting.

"Helluva rule," he tells Maclean's.

It's a powerful piece, one that vividly illustrates the suffering of a father over the needless death of his son, and his frustration that the act of fighting that led to his son's death is still seen by so many as an indispensable part of the sport.

You'd think more would want to listen to a father who has lost so much. Actually listen, that is, and not just hear what they want to hear.

Comments

[C. Redmond]

There have to be rules regulating violence in hockey. Minors cannot make an implied contract to take such risks with their lives. Parents need to speak up and ensure their safety. If that means that the good ol' game of hockey as we know it dies - let it go. I'd rather have my child alive.

[Ross P]

Damien, automatic ejections for fighting just don't work.

To give you an example, I was part of the Brandon Wheat Kings back in the late 70's and, up until a couple of years ago (when the London Knights beat our record), we had the best record in Junior Hockey history with 5 losses during the entire year. We were a "lock" to win the Memorial Cup that year, and in the first round of the playoffs, we were playing the New Westminster Bruins. The WHL (or WCHL as it was known back then) had an automatic ejection for fighting rule, but the smart teams knew how to use it to their advantage.

On the first shift, we put out our first line of Bill Derlago, Laurie Boschman and Brian Propp (forwards), Kelvin Melnyk and Brad McCrimmon (defense) and Glen Hanlon in goal. New West countered with John Ogrodnick and 4 others (from their 4th line) and a back up goalie. The puck drops, the gloves drop and our entire power line (and MVP goalie) is banished from the game before it even starts.

You don't think an NHL team (with home ice, last change advantage) would do the same?

[Dave So]

The idea that anyone even listens to Don Cherry anymore is laughable. Coaches Corner it seems has become more of a comedy sketch between he and Ron, than anything else. I know people in my family watch it JUST to see what outrageous thing is going to come out of his mouth next more than anything. I'm sure that he knows a lot about hockey, but times have changed, and continue to do so, while he is stuck in the 70's (or earlier) in his mindset.

In regards to Don's father and the hockey debate, of course they're not going to take his opinion to heart. They'll come up with every excuse to keep fighting (whether it be between goons or the "heated, spontaneous, emotional" exchanges), but what it really all comes down to is that SOME players cannot control themselves and keep their emotions in check. And while I recognize that there are players out there that like to take liberties with their sticks, that's just another example of players that cannot control themselves.

By the way, what are refs for? And penalties for that matter? If not to penalize players for such infractions as highsticking, crosschecking, boarding, slashing and all the other things that people like to say lead to fights that protect the star players? Perhaps the linesmen need to have their powers expanded so that they can call the penalties (ie. stuff that happens away from the puck) that the ref cannot see.

[Paul]

Damien,

Thanks for bringing this article to notice. It shows once again that the "fighting debate" is full of contradictory sides and fueled by different opponents with different agendas. Too bad that everyone things that "their views are right" and in the best interest of the game. The debate will continue, but has been escalated quickly over the past couple of months as a direct result of the tragic death of Don Sanderson. I for one can only hope that sooner, rather than later real changes will take place regarding fighting and true leadership will be found. The NHL shows no will to lead, and probably never will until their current commissioner is replaced. For the good of the game, that cannot come fast enough, but certainly is not imminent, thus will have to be a bottom-up initiative.

Also I also have a few of rhetorical questions about Don Cherry:
1) Why did Cherry attend the funeral of someone he never heard of until the inicident happened on the ice in Brantford?
2) Why did he ensure that the media knew he was going to attend the funeral?
3) Why did he say that he and Mike Sanderson were "buddies"?
4) Why did he make a point on national TV that Mike Sanderson wanted fighting in hockey to continue, (just as Don would have) as he feels is an important part of the game? From the article, these clearly are untruths.

To me the answers to all are the same. In my opinion Don is just an insecure, loud-mouthed bully who is constantly looking for people to "like him" and to concur with his own biased views. He also has no problem fabricating stories to support his cause and totally dismissing others as whimps who do not agree. Mr. Cherry has a huge following of like-minded people, but is a vocal minority and is getting smaller all of the time. In due time, Mr. Cherry and his devotees will be silenced, but still may be years or decades before finally is 100% quieted and he will just be a footnote in the history books of a ostentatious character. By then hockey will be a better game with different leadership and a greater appeal – at least I can hope.

[Guido]

Cherry a liar -- no way! LOL

[Pension Plan Puppets]

Damien, stop pretending like the anti-fighting side didn't use this tragedy to ramp up the pressure to do something about fighting. Yes, I know that you have always been anti-fighting but you definitely have ramped it up in light of recent events.

To be fair, Cherry and other fighting supporters also tried to do the same for their position.

"Mike Sanderson says he supports a regulation that would lead to automatic ejections for fighting."

That rule already exists in the Dunlops' league and it didn't prevent the tragedy. Georges Laraque's suggestions of having rules on chin straps and taking helmets off as well as having refs stop any fights where the helmet comes off should be looked at as well.

[Robert Swift]

Nice to see the facts come out from Mr. Sanderson on his conversation with Cherry re fighting in hockey. Cherry seems to be a lot like his sportscoats. Too much show and not enough substance on the fighting issue. Every once in a while, he should just keep his mouth shut!

[Alex]

Wow Damien, an opportunity for you to crap on Don Cherry. This must have made your week. Way to pick excerpts and jump to conclusions to support your own biases against fighting in hockey and Don Cherry in general.

You're a sad little man, and my all-time least favourite sports writer. Don is and always will be a legend in Canada. You're nothing but a beat writer who will be forgotten the day after your last article is posted.

[Oliver]

You said yourself Damien, that "Don Sanderson should not be made a martyr." Why then, are you doing exactly that. You are just as guilty as Mr. Cherry. You yourself are using this young man's death to aid in your personal pursuit of eradicating fighting from hockey. Shame on you.

[Norman]

Isn't it about time the CBC took this relic off his soapbox and put him out to pasture? This country has six NHL franchises yet the national broadcaster we all pay for still insists on forcing the minotity opinion of an over the hill prejudiced Leafs fan on the public. To make matters worse, there is never an intelligent debate. All we ever get is an uncontested one sided monologue from Mr Cherry. What the stone aged opinions of this man has done to influence our children over the years is unthinkable. Perhaps a class action law suit against the CBC is in order here. Don Cherry never even made it to the NHL as a player. That our national broadcaster has allowed this fringe hanger on with a minority viewpoint to continue his unopposed misguided rants is unacceptable. Perhaps he should be replaced for the next twenty years with an unopposed speaker from hockey's "left wing". Any volunteers Mr. Cox? A breath of fresh air for the new millenium would be most welcome after the previous 20 years of Cherry's draconian dictatorship of the airwaves. We should also get rid of Cherry's "yes" man Ron McLean at the same time.

[skyhawk]

Oh man,are YOU going to get it now for having the guts to print the truth.the other cave dwelling troglodytes that time and time again support the archaiac opinions of Don Cherry are REALLY going to have trouble attacking the source of the original story.i don`t think even THEY are that stupid,so Damien,get ready.they`ll need to attack someone and i`m betting they`ll "kill the messanger".which unfortunatley in this case is you.thanks for having the guts to print the truth.good luck with that attacks that are sure to follow.

[lynx]

I wondered why Don Cherry had gone to that funreal, and was really hoping it wasn`t for some self serving interest of his own.i`m crushed .unless the Cherry enablers want to call Mr.Sanderson a liar,it now appears VERY clear why Cherry was there.shameful.i for one would not use the death of that poor mans son to "further the fight on fighting in hockey", i`d use it to get rid of a MUCH larger danger.that antiquated biggot that ,for some reason,Canadians pay to watch every Sat night.

[joel]

i feel bad for the Sanderson family.. no that the people with the hidden agendas are coming out of the woodwork (Cherry).. yes we have to learn from this tragic event, but not a the expense of the family's feelings

[Giller]

Okay, wait. So apparently Damien, you haven't talked to Mr Sanderson himself? How do we know what McLean's is saying is true vs what Don Cherry is saying? Right now it's the old he said, she said. I trust both Cherry and McLean's, so am confussed. Would this piece not have had more impact if you yourself had actually asked Mr. Sanderson and gotten the facts first hand? Right now, it comes off as just another attack on Don Cherry, and seems very personal.

[Chris Michaels]

Has free-will completely been eliminated from the equation here? I'm more than willing to listen to any and all potential rule changes to improve the safety of the players.

But, if my kid is killed drunk-driving, I'm not going to try and have driving banned.

Not to speak ill of those passed, nor disrepect the Sanderson family, but Don Sanderson made a choice. No one held a gun to his head. He knew the risks going into it, and he accepted.

Yes, we can make things safer. But can we quit insulting Don Sanderson by treating this situation as if it was caused by someone other than himself?

[chris]

It'll be very interesting to see how Don Cherry and his acolytes of hockey fisticuffs try and spin this around, if they dare. They sanctimoneously accuse the anti-hockey fighting crowd of trying to push their agenda at the expense of a grieving family when in reality it was the other way around. Heckuva job, Grapes. There's always a place for you on Fox News alongside O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck, the Three Stooges of misinformation.

[Jason]

"While some have been accused of using the death of Don Sanderson to further the effort to ban fighting from hockey"

That sentence should be on your business card. You more than anyone, has used this death to further your agenda.
I have not read anyones column that contains more references to Don Sanderson that yours does.

For the record, you've mentioned banning fighting in 8 of your last 9 articles since Jan 26th. If your not pushing your views on everyone else than explain to me how you can't seem to write about anything else?
Why can't you move on and report on something else for a change? Why not offer solutions instead of arguing how everyone else, like Don Cherry, is wrong and your right? By arguing every chance you get and posting articles like this one so you can give a big "I told you so" to Don Cherry, your making yourself part of the problem not the solution.
One more thing, if you are not furthering your agenda, then why do you also keep mentioning Don Cherry? If the guy is so wrong and off base, why do you keep mentioning what he says? Move on please!
I'm awaiting your response

[stephen]

No no no no no.

Sure, he's suffering -- we get that, Damien. But did you ever consider that in his current emotional state he's not exactly the most unbiased rational mind to speak on the matter at the moment? Sure, it makes for a cute story, but it only detracts from thoughtfully considering the entire case. "Journalism" at its worst.

If he doesn't support fighting in hockey, then he shouldn't be fighting. His son, however, obviously DID support it.

Shame on Grapes, though.

[Lost In Alberta]

Hey Damien, thanks for pointing us to a great article! I've been on the fence on this issue for a while, but when you take a step back and look at it, fighting really is a disgrace. I don't think you can turn it off overnight, but no doubt it is a good time to take some steps in that direction with some meaningful rule changes. I hope the NHL wakes-up and steps-up! (I guess I'm off the fence now).

[mimo70]

I saw that Coach's Corner and immediately doubted Cherry's "report" of what Mike Sanderson felt about fighting.

Week after week, Cherry creates the impression that anyone who "matters", in hockey, agrees with him - especially when it comes to the issue of fighting. Who those people that "matter" are, is, conveniently, solely determined by Cherry himself. I wonder if he counts Georges Laraque and Mike Sanderson among the exclusive bunch.

Also, Cherry constantly frames any hockey discussion in the context of class (the blue collar types get it, the nancy boy educated types don't). It's a very sad, old and very limited way to talk about any issue, let alone hockey fisticuffs. But it serves his popularity well, doesn't it. I think it would be surprising to him to find out that, yes, some of "his" people also think it's time fighting was removed from the game for good.

I think the tide is finally turning. I've been a hockey fan all of my life and always thought that fighting was silly and unnecessary and got in the way of the actual game. Soccer is not the only beautiful game! Hopefully, we're on our way...hopefully.

[Mr Wood]

Is Don Cherry's time up?

When I was growing up I learned all about different skills, tactics and systems from TV experts Bob Goldham, Don Marshall, Howie Meeker and others who gave insight inbetween periods.

For the last couple of decades it's been Don going on about Canadiana, Kingston boys and Fights. It's entertaining, sure, but a novelty act that's grown tiresome.

Thanks Don, but now I'd rather hear about the merits of left wing locks, stretch pass breakouts et al from experts - European & Canadian - who have actually played in the last 25 years or so.

[Brad Mitchell]

That Maclean's article was simply outstanding. I was a fighting proponent until I read it!!! Damien and I have even exchanged verbal daggers over this very issue. But he's right folks. He just didn't relay the message as effectively as Charlie Gillis has. But they're both right. The time has come to let this sport evolve, and part of that is stiffer punishment for fighting. I sincerely hope the referees are up for the challenge, because the stickwork and cheapshots will become an epidemic that they will have to somehow erradicate (with players no longer allowed to "police themselves" via fights). What about 3 referees and 1 linesman?
Regardless, I strongly encourage everyone to please read the Macleans peace. It's time for us stubborn fighting proponents to embrace change. The game is good enough to stand on its own. Isn't it...?

[Brad Mitchell]

One other thing... since I have criticized Damien in the past for misrepresenting the facts to suit his agenda, I certainly can't let Don Cherry slide on this one. I'm a Cherry fan, but it's absolutely disgusting for him to go on national television and imply that Mike Sanderson is pro-fighting when clearly he is not. That is shameful, and for someone who constantly harps about honor and integrity, it's amazing that Cherry didn't have the guts to talk about the article this past Saturday. What a hypocrite! I'm assuming you didn't see it, Don? You owe your fans an explanation.

[Rick Cottier]

Well, I guess I can't say Cherry has any more class than you. He lied about his relationship with Mike Sanderson. You're both classless opportunists (I guess that's really not all that surprising).
The only reason to take fighting out is because some people don't like watching it. Similarly, the only reason to keep it in is because some people do like watching it.
I don't think any of the arguements - safety of the players, being a role model for kids, releasing aggression, or protecting stars - are very convincing, either way.
This is entertainment, and, like a Leafs game on national TV on a Saturday, it's all about how many people are going to watch. So the debate should shift from "who wears panties and who is a neanderthal", to the brass tacks of whether or not fighting attracts more fans than it chases away.
Please do your best to quantify this in order to form a more qualified and less subjective arguement about banning fighting. (For my money, even as a fan of fights, I'd guess a ban wouldn't have significant impact on the numbers)
Lastly, if fighting is considered unnceccesary, then why aren't slapshots and body checks also considered unnessecary? As any rec-shinney game will show, hockey can be played without all three elements. It's less exciting to watch, but it is signifcantly less dnagerous to play.

[Aron]

Mr Cox,

Its sad. Its sad that people use a family in pain to enhance their own agenda! Shame on them. I love hockey, but i wouldnt introduce my kids until fighting has been banned. And am not alone in this. Many dads in their 30's are thinking the way i am. As long as there is fighting, there wont be any $$$ coming out of our pockets. Period. Now i want to see how Mr. Cherry, Burke, et all are going to help to expand the game when a big part of the game is people fist fighting in front of our 3-8 year kids?? Good luck i say!
I hope you continue cover this topic. Nothing would please me more than introducing hockey to my kids, once fighting is out.