Colin Campbell and Those Messy E-Mails

E-mails. Again. They tripped up Ted Saskin, or at least his penchant for reading those of others, and now it's Colin Campbell's turn.

This is the great "AHA!" moment for some, and while it's not quite a Tiger Woods sexting episode, it's making the NHL's disciplinarian squirm.

Actually, that was more the case nine months ago when the emails were first made public at a hearing into the dismissal of referee Dean Warren. Star reporter Rob Cribb, one of the best in the business, covered that hearing with a series of stories that included Campbell's emails to referee-in-chief Stephen Walkom.

And no one cared. Nobody else even covered the story. And the NHL wasn't happy that The Star did.

Today, the reverberations are different because local blogger Tyler Dellow took the evidence one step further, putting together some evidence on the players he believes Campbell was referring to in those emails, including Campbell's son.

Now, suddenly everybody cares. When it was just about a fired ref, it didn't matter. It's an interesting comment on these media times, including the fact some "bloggers" are twisting this to suggest the "main stream media" is out to protect the establishment and figures in power. Why these people weren't outraged and up in arms when Cribb was writing his stories and The Star was publishing them is unclear. If you employ the logic of the bloggers, their silence was evidence that they were the ones protecting the establishment.

But all that's just superficial media chatter. The meat of this story boils down to one straightforward question; does this constitute this a firing offence for Campbell?

The NHL says no. That's what they said in February, and that's what they say now. The connection some want to make is that the NHL disciplinary system is a mess, and Campbell runs that system, and these emails prove he lacks integrity, so firing him will fix the system.

Well, parts of that might be true, and other parts not so much.

The NHL disciplinary system is an illogical swamp of confusion, and it's been that way for a long, long time, well before Campbell took over. It's why they once had a nasty riot in Montreal. Other than occasional spasms of enlightenment, the NHL has historically chosen not to punish transgressors very hard, and sometimes not at all. Lest we forget, it was Brian Burke who decided Claude Lemieux only deserved two playoff games for crushing Kris Draper's face in during the 1996 playoffs.

But remember, Burke worked for Gary Bettman, and Bettman worked and still works for the owners. It's the owners, folks, who make the macro decisions on how they want the suspension system to work, and that continues through to today. If Tom Golisano or Philip Anschutz or Charles Wang or Jeremy Jacobs or Daryl Katz or Rocky Wirtz wanted to patch together enough votes at the NHL board of governors to vote in a new system that would abolish the current two games here, one game there system, it would happen.

But the owners don't want that, because they know it might adversely affect their team and possibily their business. Look at the screaming reaction of the San Jose Sharks when Joe Thornton received a TWO GAME ban recently. You think Shark ownership will be at the meetings next month in West Palm Beach demanding a more draconian justice system for the league? Of course not.

Just as Brian O'Neill, then, didn't design the parameters of NHL supplemental discipline back in his day, but simply dispensed it within those parameters, so it was the same for Burke and for Campbell today. This is not a league populated by owners who want all violence or misconduct punished heavily, so that leaves Campbell, just like his predecessors, in a tricky spot.

So if you, like I, believe the NHL disciplinary system needs an overhaul, the people who can change it are the owners. Campbell's an employee doing his job under the job description handed to him and to pretend otherwise is either naivete or ignorance. The other part of the equation is that he has to deal with the NHL Players Association, which only goes to bat for those who break the law, never the victims. It's a weird system that produces unjust results. Just ask Steve Moore.

So we go back to the connection between these emails, Campbell and the system. Firing him won't change the system. The next guy will face the same limitations.

Does he deserve to be canned anyway for the inappropriate comments made through internal emails to a fellow employee? Can you imagine if your company emails were made public, and how you'd explain the ones you sent to your buddy because you trusted him and never believed the world would see them? But it's clear Campbell's emails produce an unflattering picture of how the league dealt with a specific problem.

What we do know is that the Ontario Labour Relations Board has decided the emails did not show Warren was unfairly fired, but that he was dismissed for "substandard performance." That's what the hearing was about. The new argument made by through Dellow's blog and by Campbell critics is that the emails show he was biased against certain NHLers and in favour of others, specifically his son, Gregory.

If specific proof beyond these emails can be offered, that would be damning evidence indeed. Campbell's a very good man, but he can't run the league in favour of some more than others, and if it can be demonstrated that's the case, and it hasn't been so far, than it would be difficult for him to stay. Hey, even Don Fehr might poke his head out and take notice if union members were being treated unfairly.

In years of regular conversations with Campbell I cannot recall a single incident in which it seemed he was out to get or embarrass a certain player. In fact, I often urged him to be tougher on the perceived jerks and rats of the league, but he was always willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. He always thought as a player, and still does. When it came to his son, other than laughing about the fact his wife wanted him to talk Gregory into wearing a visor, there was never a scrap of a suggestion he had any involvement other than a dad watching his kid. That some call this nepotism is ridiculous; Campbell didn't hire his son, didn't draft him or play for him. Gregory has always had to deal with this nonsense - imagine the crap a creep like Sean Avery spits at him - but he chose to be a hockey player, just like his pa.

If you want to hang Colin Campbell based on these emails because you believe they are evidence of a biased person, that's your perogative. I won't, even though I have written critical columns of Campbell and the NHL justice system since the middle 1990s. He believes fighting is part of the game, I don't. I thought James Wisniewski deserved 20 games. He didn't. We don't agree on a whole lot, but because we disagree doesn't mean I think he lacks integrity. Just the opposite, in fact. My guess is the NHL won't be inclined to dump Campbell either. He's been too good a human shield for the Bettman administration for too long.

Still, it could be that Campbell's time has run out anyway. Doing this thankless job for more than a decade may just be too long, if only because the job entails being a daily lightning rod for a disciplinary system that is under the control of others. The enormously positive changes in the sport that Campbell ushered through the system during and after the lockout - he's the one who sold them to the owners, who bought what he was selling and produced a vastly improved game - aren't valued to the same extent he's blamed for the wonky suspension system.

If Campbell goes, the next hanging judge will find himself in the very same situation. He'll just know to be more careful with the email trail.

 

 

 

Comments

[Sheridan Westlake]

The Star's original story showed Campbell swore in his emails. That's why no one cared.

The new story is that he was writing about his son. That's why people now do care.

How can you continue to say there isn't "a scrap of a suggestion he had any involvement other than a dad watching his kid"? Generally, when new information comes along, people consider changing their minds.

[Nate]

Damien, instead of getting all worked up about why no one was incredulous when Cribb first reported the story, you could just read your own article:

"Today, the reverberations are different because local blogger Tyler Dellow took the evidence one step further, putting together some evidence on the players he believes Campbell was referring to in those emails, including Campbell's son."

Exactly! Dellow put a lot of effort into figuring out the identity of the players in question. And yes, it is a HUGE deal that Campbell is writing e-mails to league officials questioning calls made against his son. Just because he doesn't explicitly make decisions regarding his son doesn't mean he isn't indirectly influencing these same decisions. And yes, it's a far more intriguing story that the head of discipline seems to be playing favourites than the original "NHL tries to fire pro-union referee" byline. Sorry Cribb.

And calling Savard a diving fake artist? He cannot, CANNOT, be sending that type of thing to the head of officiating. Besides bad optics for the league, even the perception that Campbell is influencing the head of officiating is inappropriate to say the least. Again, just because Campbell claims he doesn't let his personal relationships with players affect his judgments (though based on what we've seen, he seems to be on awfully shaky ground), doesn't mean he isn't indirectly influencing officials in-game calls.

[Wade]

Good to have your take on this, Damien, but the issue here is not the emails as they relate to Warren's firing (I read Cribb's stories at the time) but only the story Dellow has broken: Campbell's bias towards his son and quite possibly against specific players like Marc Savard. I think the evidence he found is already damning. It's disingenuous to say "If specific proof beyond these emails can be offered..." as it implies that is is not a story until someone besides a "blogger" finds evidence. Your past conversations with him or impressions of him don't really matter. Sorry. This evidence does matter.

I think there is more than enough here to put the onus on Colin Campbell to adequately defend himself. I don't 'want' to hang him. I only want, like you, the NHL to be much better at disciplining its players -- for the betterment of the game -- and this story strikes right at the heart of how the NHL's man in charge of discipline does his job.

I'd like to see the Star question Campbell directly about this serious issue.

[Tree]

Cox - you're glossing over a few things:

- Cribbs stories were strictly about Dean Warren and never referenced the most eggregious text of the emails (calling Savard a whiner, faker and what have you; specifically complaining about 3 penalties called against his son). If these tidbits had been included - if Cribbs had done some research to find out the redacted identities - the fans *would* have cared. But he didn't; he focussed solely on the fired ref, and I doubt the average fan cares about that. Using that coverage to besmirch bloggers is misguided at best, arrogant at worst.

- There is irrefutable evidence that Campbell has intimidated refs with regard to calls against his son. This is a clear demonstration of a lack of bias and poor decision-making. This role needs to be impartial and unbiased - these emails clearly paint a picture of someone who is anything but.

- There is irrefutable evidence that Campbell has bias against certain players (ie. Savard). See above; this clearly demonstrates a lack of required characteristics for this position.

- The optics are terrible for Campbell, given the events of last year (Savard-Cooke). Reality doesn't matter anymore, perception trumps it. The way this is being percieved by fans is that Campbell has an axe to grind with Savard (evident in these emails), and thus may not have been able to separate his preconcieved bias when judging that hit. Not saying I agree this is the case; but you're in the business - you know that perception matters more than the truth.

- Fans in general had little faith in Campbell; this only justifies their feelings.

The worst part, to me, is the way the Canadian media is circling the wagons for "Colie". He may be a great guy, but if an executive at a company got caught with emails to a subordinate that call out performance becuase of the way that executive's son was treated (and in such a profane way), they'd be fired. No doubt about it. Why the sports media chooses not to apply the rules of the real business world to sports executives is troubling.

Bottom line: Campbell needs to not only be impartial and unbiased to do his job properly, he needs to appear as such. Are you left with the feeling he is? The general fan sure doesn't feel that way about him ... and this game is all about the fans.

[Krakondack]

You'd give Wisniewski 20 games? Do I get this right, that this is in connection to his rude gesture to Avery? Thank heaven you're not the discipline guy, or political correctness would be the law of the land, not actual injury inflicted.

[Tree]

Damien - I hope oyu're just behind on posting comments ... doesn't look too good on you if you're just refusing to post what are no doubt many logical reason why this story actually does matter. The basis of pro sports is integrity and a lack of bias, this does not help portray the NHL in that light.

[James]

Nobody cared before because Cribb didn't think to dig deeper into the contents of the e-mail. Cribb never actively sought out who the "little fake artist" was, nor did he look to see what calls against what player had Colin Campbell so mad. Cribb's story was about a plot to get Dean Warren (an official nobody really knows about, unlike say Kerry Fraser) and not about how Colin Campbell uses his power to whine and complain about calls made against his son to the head of officiating. That is why people care now.

People care because Colin Campbell appears to be trying to influence referees to not call as many penalties against his son. People didn't care before because Dean Warren was just a guy wearing stripes, not really a note-worthy one either.

People care now, because a man in power is trying to influence the outcome of a supposedly fair and random game. If you can't see why people didn't care then, but do care now, then you truly are looking down on the people from your Ivory Tower.

[andrew]

I think the main difference here is that every GM in the league would now want to have Greg Campbell on their team, as a first line center. It would seem that during this entire time he has been the most important player in the league, because refs can get canned for making an unfavorable call against Greg.

Thankfully, I believe all that is moot at this point. I cannot fathom how Mr. Campbell can keep his post in light of this.

[Brian Baker]

Any other executive would be fired for these despicable comments. Imagine what else is in his e-mail if these tidbits are any example. Calling his own Referees "Horse****" and treating his Head Official like dirt. No wonder Walkom went back on the ice rather than being subjected to this daily crap. He has no credibility with this evidence and should resign or be fired. Not a chance in Bettman's world though.

[KD]

On James Wisniewski, I think Damien got his suspensions mixed up. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, and thinking that he meant Niklas Hjalmarsson should have got 20 for his hit on Pominville. The reason for the confusion? Both suspensions were announced the same day, which shows that the NHL equates a lewd gesture with a concussing head shot. Either way, the main point of the post is still valid, and this confusion illustrates it perfectly: the NHL's supplemental justice system is a joke.

[Martin]

I spent six years in a company where the CEO's kid worked for me. Not once did I get a question or complaint about how the kid was treated -- whether by email, or phone or in person. How did Campbell behave? He's sent at least three aggressively worded emails to league officials (who he has firing authority over) complaining about how his son is being treated by referees. In a corporate environment, the first email would result in discipline. The second and third would get you fired. It's appalling.

[Domencio]

"Campbell's a very good man, but he can't run the league in favour of some more than others, and if it can be demonstrated that's the case, and it hasn't been so far...."

I totally disagree. If the VP in charge of officials rants to the head of officiating about calls/non calls in involving his son, it shows enough preception of bias to have him canned. It does not matter whether he thought they would ever be made public, the fact is that they have been made public.

Damian, you don't have to circle the wagons for Coli, the guys over at the G&M are doing a good enough job without your help.

[Aoede]

Contrary to your suggestion above, the ONLB finding did not deal with the question of whether Warren was fired for cause. The question before the board was rather whether Warren was fired because of his union activism. To quote Brian McClean's judgment: "I believe Mr. Gregson and conclude that the League’s decision, whether it was “fair” or not, was essentially a work-related decision and not, on the evidence before me, tainted by animus as a result of Mr. Warren’s exercise of rights under the Act." I presume that Cribb covered this in his original story about Warren's case.

Consider this: Brian McClean found that Campbell's emails, along with other evidence, showed that Warren's firing was "work-related" (though not necessarily "fair"). The NHL presented these emails as evidence of Warren's poor performance. Several of Campbell's emails clearly refer to calls against Gregory Campbell in particular (in the 2/24/07 and the 11/13/07 games), and one clearly refers to a call against the Panthers, Gregory's team (10/23/2006).

The NHL has said that Colin Campbell is not involved in discipline of his son or his son's teams, and that these emails are just examples of "venting." Why, in that case, was Campbell's "venting" used as evidence of Warren's poor performance?

[Wade J]

Looks like you have many well-thought out comments from readers here, Damien. Will you respond and give us a follow-up article? Any chance the Star will approach Colin Campbell for a comment?

[Dan]

Dellow did the leg work of figuring out specifically whom the e-mails were referring to. "Star reporter Rob Cribb, one of the best in the business", apparently couldn't be bothered to or simply didn't think it mattered when in fact, that was the REAL STORY here and the reason why people now care about the e-mails. It is understandable for you to be anxious and and negative towards bloggers since they'll likely be taking your job in a few years, but give credit where credit is due. Dellow did a great job.

[sum1]

It's a joke how the Canadian media is trying to shelter this guy - mainly all the guys with "the inside scoops". I guess if Campbell goes, other people stand to lose as well. If you look at Warren's history with the NHL, he was one of the top referees. He was given the opportunity to referee plenty of playoff games - hardly the sign of a referee who was incompetent.

[micnugget]

It would appear that the NHL has a major problem on its hands right now and if this guy is allowed to stay they are basically thumbing their noses at the players and fans. Their credibility is on the line and it will be interesting to see how they respond to the increased backlash. From the looks of things here, they don't seem to have much support. Nice try though Mr. Cox!