is it killing you guys? the look? Are you dying l, like me? (Bacon?) "He was devastated because, as you can imagine, he didn't know what was going to happen. Are they going to cuff me and send me to jail? He didn't know ..." Jesus. When did Lafleur become, well, that kind of special person? Ugly kid though, to put your dad through that (yeah, and the other stuff). What a depressing story. But if they do put the flower in jail, let's hope Quebeckers remember how to do the Maurice Richard thing.

but if what I heard is correct, GL covered for his son so that the son could break a bond agreement(?) or a parole restriction(?).  And basically, as I understand it, the son was supposed to stay at home and instead went to a hotel so he could fuck his girlfriend.

At the very least they are both morons.  If Lafleur had basic instincts, he would have told his son to stay home.  If you can't set parole conditions in a trustworthy way, there has to be some payback, otherwise.... there'd be no parole (or whatever this was).

Haven't talked to my Dad about it yet, he adored Lafleur, still will tell you he's the best player he's ever seen.  Predicting his reaction will be something along the lines of "when sports heroes retire, they should just disappear."  (That sentiment if not those words: sort of like, "Don't tell me, I'll just keep remembering him the way he was back then.")  Beyond that, I'm with you and Mike on the general feeling: sort of "poor bastard" more than anything. 

On a tangentially related note, did anyone else see Ovechkin go for four goals with a freshly broken nose against the Habs the other night?  Holy shit. 

If the report Dave linked to is right, it wasn't just a case of lying to cover up cause his kid broke bail conditions but actually helped him break bail conditions (drove him to the hotel) so, sure, you have a point.  That said (and again, I think we're all united in saying we haven't looked at the details and don't really want to) I still think it merits more of a "there but for the grace of God go I" sort of reaction. 

On Guy in today's NHL, I'm guessing you're referring to fitness levels?  Or do you feel that, Samson-like, his powers resided in the free-flowing locks of hair which, shackled beneath a helmet, would leave him weak and spiritless?

Smokers in the NHL:  Mike Bossy, Guy LaFleur, Mario Lemieux, Derek Sanderson - off the top of my head.  Others, too, but very few became big stars.

Not sure why anyone would think LaFleur wouldn't make it.  He may not be as big a success, but he'd surely catch on somewhere.

Hey, if I could play like Lemieux I'd smoke too...

Hmm, never mind.

"but for the grace of god" would keep me from throttling my kid (if I had any) if it seemed he'd raped a minor.  I'd have him either locked in an asylum or locked in a closet.  Go tell his victim's and their families about how you'd all do the same, but  for he grace of god.....  Go tell them how you too would cover for your kid to break court imposed curfews.

Anyway, now the bunch of you have interesed me.  Hypothetical.

Your 19 year old comes barging into the house one evening and says "Dad (or mom) don't ask any questions.  The police will be contacting you very soon.  Whatever you do, tell them I was at home yesterday evening."  You know he wasn't at home yesterday evening.  An hour later the police are at your door, telling you your son is a suspect in a rape incident that happened yesterday evening, and they are trying to coroborate his alibi.  (Change it, so the story's more realistic, I guess!).  What do you say?  Suppose further, that you'll be believed by the police.  In other words, make lying an option.

It's funny not having kids.  All I can think of is how the victim(s) is feeling about all this.  Imagine.

is like coming at me with Spud Webb.  Basically get a shrug from me.  What percentage of the top players today are small guys?  Under 10%?  Under 5%?  Anyway, who really knows?  I'm saying the game has totally changed; that at least indicates it could change again.  Anyway, those Red Wings are one small team.....

Yeah, I'd kill him.  (Let's remember your stipulation that that was the only way.)  Just one victim.  That was easy.  Putting it into context, let's make it one underage victim - say a 12 year old.  I'd kill him to save that victim.

I think Guy Lafleur is one fucked up parent.  Obviously, he has one fucked up kid.  He's got to take at least just a little blame for  that on its own. Then he agrees to custody with a curfew, aids the kid in breaking it, and then lies to cover it up in legal documents.

Easy for me to say?  Whatever.  If this is the best you've got isn't the argument over?

Basically, you're trying to input a) parent's weakness due to their alleged love for their kid (some love you're profesing here - to me, Lafleur hates his kid), and b) Lafleur was a hockey star.

If Lafleur loved his kid, he wouldn't be helping him break a court-imposed curfew.  If Lafleur loved his kid,...... well we could write a book here.

maybe I'll kill myself afterward.  I probably should.  But that's not the point - no kid o'mine is going to rape a minor, if I can stop it.

And I'm not going to pretend that the reason I didn't turn him in (in the Lafleur case) is that I love him, when, instead, its because I don't want to lose face and admit that I'm a fuck up.

daveto wanted the "kill your child" option to make the issue stark.  To me it adds very little.

But it's more interesting reflection on daveto, who has shown a propensity to cut an awesome amount of slack to Lafleur and on another matter to baseball players, but in politics, he sometimes takes the other extreme.  This may be the first time I've suggested it, but my current daveto model is that his slack meter is out of whack.

Interestingly, I've now asked 13 people, none of whom really know much about Lafleur, except for the few recent headlines - and everyone's first reaction has been "what kind of parent is he?"  No exceptions.  Everyone said there's no way they'd let their kid violate a court order, under these conditions.  And everyone said it would be in the kid's best interest if  the parent had on his own turned the kid in.

1. Your point was, or so I thought, that Lafleur's actions were one of "basic instinct" to protect their kid.  I'm arguing to the contrary, he's shown very little basic instinct throughout, and that the only instinct he showed was the base one of wanting to cover his ass.

2. Paying for going to the game doesn't mean you condoned cheating, even if you knew or suspected it was going on.  You could pay for the game and fully disapprove of the cheating.

3. It does make a difference what Bonds is punished for.  Sure one might mitigate the other to an extent.  But it makes a difference.  It was good Capone was put away, but justice wasn't fully done given he was only punished for tax evasion.

4. Of course others in baseball should be punished too.  But if they aren't, we still don't let Bonds off the hook.  The point may be moot - It seems Clemens is intent on taking himself down - I heard Pettite is now willing to come clean on Clemens.

Here's my only point - you were willing to cut slack for baseball players - you expressed some sympathy for their motivations in their cheating.  You expressed some sympathy for Bonds.  You expressed some sympathy for Lafleur here - you said he was acting on the basic instinct of protecting his kid.  Again, you are cutting him some slack.

In both cases, I've argued back that in both cases there is damage that has been done.  I've argued that these figures are undeserving of your sympathy.  I've argued in favour of action against baseball players - out of the hall of fame; asterisks beside records - this kind of thing, and unless I'm mistaken didn't you disagree?  Tell me what I'm missing?