Kuch's Corner: Since when did Ralph Nader give a shit about sports?

Let alone, hockey? Well apparently America’s favourite political eunuch recently decided to join the legion of anti-fighting pundits, writing an open letter  to NHL commissioner Gary Bettman demanding that he ban all fighting in the league. To give you a crash course in Nader’s mediocrity, the guy’s life is littered with overly moralized activism, continuously being that guy every Hollywood actor threatens to vote for but never does, and can also be blamed for George Bush’s 2000 presidential election win in Florida (Bush won by 531 votes over Gore, and somehow Nader ripped close to 97,421 votes from the state as the Green Party candidate). Did I mention he’s from fucking Texas? In short, he’s got absolutely zero clout when it comes to hockey commentary.

Lately every uppity critic is denouncing fighting in hockey, citing the surge of concussions and suicides to enforcers over the summer as reason alone there should be a clean cut of the practise within the sport. Yet none of them ever seem to know exactly what the fuck they’re talking about, considering that statistically fighting doesn’t even account for the majority of concussions in hockey: that distinction would go to vicious elbows, blindside hits, or the useless [one touch icing rule](http://link - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgHN0Jh8Q0M). In his letter Nader cited Sidney Crosby as someone suffering from hockey pugilism. Guess what Ralph? It was a blindside hit that sidelined him, not a fist, you daft prick. In fact, there’s a plausible argument that hockey fights are deterrents to the sort of malicious behavior common to that weasel Matt Cooke on the Pittsburgh Penguins, who ruined the career of Marc Savard. Invisible honour codes govern the laws of hockey fights; as in, tough players know exactly when they’re allowed to “go” with other scrappers. Like when somebody slashes lumber to the ankles of a superstar or snows the goalie while he’s freezing the puck. It’s why Marty McCsorley had a career as Gretzky’s bodyguard (both in LA and Edmonton) and why Colton Orr even exists. But really, this romanticized “code” is just hockey players’ way of resolving issues and relieving the intensity and grudge holding of a game. If not, horrific shit like this would happen when an oft coked out enforcer throws a tantrum when he doesn’t get to settle a score with some lunatic skating around the ice running his teammates from behind.

Some classic on ice justice.

Nader suddenly giving a shit about hockey fighting is proof alone that it’s becoming ubiquitous for bougie public figures to start condemning when they normally rant about the environment or fucking Rick Santorum. Meanwhile, boneheaded hockey commentators who can’t string three sentences together without breathing through their mouths (like Don Cherry and Mike Millbury who literally bullied a twelve year old) represent the pro-fighting factions. Unsurprisingly these guys come from smaller towns and barely passed high school (if at all), but at the very least they know the game of hockey. Besides the fact that Cherry is completely off the reservation and going senile, he understands that fighting is a deep-seated corrective mechanism in the game that to some extent protects players from being smashed from behind or tomahawked with a stick. Sadly he and Millbury come across as illiterates and therefore, to the more sophisticated media analysts having the productive discussion about banning hockey, they’re prohibited from the actual conversation. But what they have to say carries some density and should seriously be considered. Hockey fights don’t necessarily have to be about bench clearing brawls or staged theatrics, they’re also the built-in policing machine keeping sociopaths on skates from doing something seriously fucked up. Not to mention, who doesn’t love watching Dion Phaneuf get his face filled in after one of his typically dirty hits? A few years ago, Mike Brophy (a hockey writer who doesn’t sound inbred), recommended to the NHL to eject from games any player who fights and is averaging less than 10 minutes of playing time per game. In other words, if you aren't good enough to play a regular shift in the NHL, then you don't deserve the right to fight. Something like this could distinctly change the culture of fighting for the better, and confirms that they can easily tweak fighting instead of outright banning it.

And with the banning of hockey fights could bring on a surge of these heinous hits, and with that, who knows? Maybe then they’ll rid the game of physical contact altogether, which would dramatically alter how hockey would look and turn it into ringette or flag football on ice. Yet American critics, like that fat-fuck Larry Brooks covering the Rangers, or Nader for that matter, continue to yap every time they get the chance to condemn hockey fighting, riddling their criticism with underhanded class and social judgements about hockey fights and those who love it. If Nader was so worried about making “player safety a priority” why didn’t he contact the NFL over that appalling helmet to helmet hit Colt McCoy received in December? A hit that the entire Cleveland Browns medical staff magically claimed they didn’t see before sending him right back out. For two more plays. Somehow, these critics use that same old American way of criticizing what they don’t understand, throwing around judgements they should be levelling at themselves.

Next time Ralph Nader starts criticising our national game, maybe he should examine egregious American sporting traditions, or just stay away from sports altogether. Then again, that would pretty much leave him with politics.

@BMakuch