Only Blogs That Don't Suck are Good For Sports

Anyone can write about sports. Quality determines who gets read.

The New York Times has observed that we at Pass it to Bulis are the blogosphere, and speaking for the entire blogosphere at large, I'll point out that the much-ballyhooed battle between bloggers and journalists is pointless and counterproductive. People get too hung up on their status as a blogger or professional writer and forget that quality is the most important thing. I've said it before -- sports writers are in their position because of their communication skills. Sports beats have very few instances of investigative journalism. The closest thing to it is usually rumoring, and anyone can do that. Most cases, sports writers are reporting on the same games their readers watched, the same streaks their readers observed, the same stats their readers have access to. Hardcore sports fans often cram their brain with even the most useless trivia. I know I'm not alone in knowing more about my sport of choice than I need to. So when what would be the main qualification for a sports writing position -- knowledge about the sport and/or team in question -- is common even among the general readers, the most important qualification becomes something else: writing quality.

Quality of writing is the single greatest concern for any source of sports commentary -- whether it's a blog, a newspaper or a broadcast. We asked Bob McKenzie what he thought about the dynamic between blogs and the mainstream media, and he said essentially the same thing. "The fans ultimately make the call on who's good and who isn't," said McKenzie, in an e-mail. "Anyone can fire up a site on the internet and call themself a blogger and/or someone can work at some level in MSM, but if no one is watching you or listening to you or reading you, well, figure it out. If you provide something of value, you will get traffic or responses. If you aren't getting traffic, you might want to ask yourself what you're doing."

This is one of the reasons nonprofessional sports blogs and some of the more traditional media forms have occasionally been at odds. While big national names like Bob McKenzie are safe, there are plenty of small-time columnists for whom bloggers are a real threat. Sports writers know that their job could, technically, be filled by any fan who happens to be as good a writer as they are, and thanks to blogging on the internet, such folks are getting plenty of exposure. Most sports blogs are more than just a way for folks to rant about their favorite team -- I'd expect almost all bloggers at least hope of one day making money for their writing, even if some don't pursue that goal as fervently as others.

While lots of blue-collar jobs are being outsourced to countries willing to do the same jobs for a fraction of the pay, the entertainment industry is mostly safe from such foreign incursion. Still, sports writers are in danger of losing their jobs to another vast group of people willing to do the same job for less -- the massive pool of bloggers of varied talent whose websites constitute a constant wave of attempted auditions. Blogging has already made opinion sections in newspapers almost completely unprofitable. The news sections are still sort of safe, because Random Angry Citizen X doesn't actually go out and research stories in the way investigative journalists do. Sports writers have no such cover, so it's no surprise some of them seem to go out of their way to disparage bloggers. In their defense, because any idiot can start a blog, most of the blogs out there are pretty crummy. Also in their defense, blogs threaten to put them out of work, and people tend to protect their livelihood. Once more in their defense, plenty of blogs actively go after the "mainstream media," spouting conspiracy theories and other garbage, constantly attacking them for typos and other nonsense, and just generally being mean-spirited.

This is completely independent of the media form -- most news sources have noted the advantages of Internet coverage and its ability to comment on events the hour they unfold. Most have blogging in some form or another.

Damien Cox is a blogger. What sets him apart (aside from being better at it than most) isn't the medium he uses, it's that he's paid for it. He does it for a living. As such, he has the job all the unpaid, unprofessional bloggers want. The two groups are naturally at odds, and not everyone's as cordial as McKenzie. "Plenty of room for everyone," McKenzie said. "In terms of whether a blog does well or not, it's not for me to decide. Traffic and popularity with readers/viewers is what it's all about.

Still, it seems unlikely someone as big as Damien Cox is actually worried about being supplanted (again, a national name), and he's been one of the more visible critics of blogs. Obviously, there's more to it than just competition. If a journalist's craft is what sets him apart, then he probably cares about it. Bad blogs, with poorly-written, half-formed ideas and stupid analysis, clutter up the net. They suck, and then some have the gall to go around taking pot shots at real journalists just to garner attention. It makes sense that professional writers who strive to meet high standards would take issue with the garbage thrown around by folks who don't care for accuracy, tact or, often, grammar. With what Fox News has done for broadcast journalism (or rather, to broadcast journalism), it's easy to worry that the bad bloggers might drag quality down. The Internet's instant gratification has already made the speed of publication almost as important as its quality, which has to eat at any perfectionist. If it seems like a journalist's beef with bloggers is personal, maybe it should be.

Here's the thing, though. This animosity does no one much good. Bloggers are good for hockey. Professional sports journalists are good for hockey. Diversity is good for the fans. And slagging each other is bad for both independent bloggers and syndicated journalists.

There are blogs out there (you know who you are) who seize every chance you can to attack the "mainstream media," and professional journalists. They should know better. People don't buy it when inexperienced people try to gain credibility by slagging the ones who have the job, and implying that their experience is a negative. A lot of blogs spout ridiculous incendiary drivel, and then attack the mainstream media for not following suit. The reality is, the mainstream media -- the ones who are paid professionals -- understand that being incendiary for its own sake is counterproductive, juvenile, and informed readers don't take it seriously. Attacking professionals for being professional is petty, transparent, and makes the world a worse place to live in, in general. Shame on anyone who practices it.

More, none of these media outlets are going to hire the idiots who show such contempt for professionalism or truth in journalism. The bloggers who are actually trying to get real media jobs sometimes lose sight of this truth, and shoot themselves in the foot by going after real journalists. Many current sports writers and broadcasters have schooling in journalism, and for guys like Bob McKenzie, for instance, it's something they take seriously. Making blind attacks can give the wrong impression, as Bob McKenzie pointed out. If someone is going to call me out for doing a bad job or whatever, that's fine, but they better have their facts straight or I'm going to challenge them on it," he said. "Some blogger questioned my 'accountability' in a tweet and/or a blog, I don't exactly recall now, and I fired off a lengthy and detailed email challenging that. Never got a response back from that person, which I thought was pretty funny for a guy who is running around challenging people's accountability."

Sensationalist attack blogs spouting vitriolic drivel are essentially taking a crap on the principles the real journalists hold dear. To all these blogs: stop, you're making yourselves and the rest of us look bad.

Besides, sports fans usually don't care so much about how the media is doing. Some bloggers may think that by attacking mainstream journalists, they're appearing edgy, and generating hits, but really, they're just boring the fans. Blogs that whine about how bloggers aren't being taken seriously won't be taken seriously anyway. "For me, a good blog is one where the blogger is covering the game, not the media," McKenzie said. "A lot of bloggers don't have access to the players or the games or whatever and, therefore, cover how the MSM cover the game. Which is fine, everyone is entitled to do whatever they choose. But I don't really care to spend my time reading about whether the MSM is doing a good job or a bad job or whatever. I do my job, I let the readers/viewers decide. I am interested in interesting hockey info or issues. Media matters don't turn my crank and as I said, a lot of guys who start blogs don't have the wherewithal to cover the game so they cover the people who cover the game and, again, no problem if that's what they want to do but it doesn't really interest me on a regular basis."

Some talk on the media is going to come up from time to time, but any good sports blog obviously has to have its foundation in the sport it covers. Spending all your time attacking journalists doesn't make fans, interesting content, or friends.

That said, professional sports writers' animosity towards the blogosphere in general doesn't help them much. Most of the time, the professional writers and broadcasters just ignore bloggers, which often just makes them seem out of touch. Tyler Dellow breaking the story about the Colin Campbell e-mails led to coverage about the blogosphere's impact on hockey journalism, and very few professionals managed to talk about it without looking like they just discovered the internet a few days ago. The savvy reporters were the ones who didn't make a big deal about Dellow being a blogger at all. McKenzie said he handled it like any other story. "I treated it exactly the same as if I had read the report in a newspaper," McKenzie said. "What vehicle the information arrives in is unimportant, it's the information that's key."

This is a smart way to handle things.Most sports fans, when surfing the net, wind up reading a blog or two, and attempting to belittle the influence of the blogosphere as a whole makes it seem like you don't realize that it actually has any. Blogs won't go away, even if some members of the media shut their eyes and chant "not there."

Worse, when professional writers actually go to the extent of slagging a blogger, they never look good. They appear to be bullies, and rightly so. Damien Cox suffered a fair backlash after going after Tyler Dellow on twitter. Dellow is just about the worst target you can pick -- a guy who actually did investigative work, and succeeded in breaking a story that immediately became a league-wide issue. Dellow credits anyone who helps him, works hard to keep his facts straight, and is a credit to bloggers as a whole. Plus, he uses his real name, rather than hiding behind anonymity, as Cox charged bloggers in general of doing. Cox deleted the tweets, and was right to. Besides, going after individual bloggers is never a good idea, because just gives their site more hits, so even if the target is deserving of your scorn, it's best to just stay away.

All that said, Cox had some valid points that, for many, got lost in the mix -- advice to bloggers who want to be taken seriously. He argued that bloggers aren't held accountable for what they say because they hide behind anonymity, and that's sort of true. If I blogged anonymously, and no one liked my rant about how Gary Bettman is secretly a Nazi, I could just make a new blog and no one would know I was the same guy. There's no accountability whatsoever. Still, I can name more bloggers who use their real names than those that don't. I'm sure there are many anonymous blogs, but without a name, you can't get name recognition. Cox also argued the importance of contacting the people you're writing about for comment. Most of the time, small-time bloggers can't expect the people they cover to have time to comment, but he was right that we should at least make the effort. Why should anyone take a blogger seriously if he doesn't act as if he's serious? These, as well as simple adherence to truth and (for the love of Gillis) good spelling and grammar should go a long way toward legitimizing a blog. In other words, take the advice of one of the most successful hockey writers out there.

In fact, saying all these things about Damien Cox, I, of course, had to email him asking for comment. While he responded to my email and received an advance copy of this post several days in advance, he elected not to respond. (I don't consider it a snub, so much as an indication that he agrees 100% with everything I said, right?) Of course, being who he is, I doubt he has a whole lot in the way of free time, and he can't respond to every blog that finds his email on google. This isn't a knock on him, although it does call into question the validity of his criticizing Tyler Dellow for his failure to get a comment from Colin Campbell.

In any case, sports blogs aren't going away, and they shouldn't. There are some great blogs out there that have contributed positively to sports discussion. Many have earned the success the quality of their writing warrants. Bloggers have carved out a role in sports commentary, and the more they improve, the better that news will be. Most professional writers worked hard to get where they're at, and take their influence very seriously. Bloggers who follow suit, and strive to make sure they're producing quality commentary, are more likely to be taken seriously themselves, and more likely to garner real influence.

McKenzie made the same point. "It's all communication and if you do good work that is fair and responsible, the work will speak for itself," McKenzie said. "I mean, you either do good work or you don't. Information and entertainment never go out of fashion. If you can inform people or entertain them or do both, you're going to make a mark regardless of whether you get paid by a MSM outfit or you're self employed and doing your thing on a website or blog or whatever. Fans figure out who's legit and who's not. The market always ultimately speaks."

Just like sports knowledge doesn't make a good sports writer, it doesn't make a good blogger. In both cases, the most important qualification will always be the quality of the writing, so bloggers -- just like the rest of the media -- owe it to themselves and everyone else not to suck.

McKenzie, Cox, and the Difference Between Bloggers and Journalists

Harrison touched on Damien Cox's recent words regarding Tyler Dellow and his blog. These comments received some backlash, as many thought he was being somewhat harsh. Cox has since deleted the tweets and issued a retraction. Still, his comments managed to stir the pot with the tired, old debate about a blogger's role in the hockey writers' community. The debate, as I said just a second ago, is tired and old, but recent events have required that the dead horse be given one more hard kick in the name of holding "real" journalists accountable.

The story about the Colin Campbell e-mails has shown not only bloggers' potential for great journalism, but actual "journalists'" potential for shoddy disappointment.

Bloggers haven't been given a fair shake. We're more than "web/twitter groupies," as Damien Cox called us. While it'd be fair to say individual bloggers reach fewer people than individual sportswriters, bloggers do have a great deal of influence, as Tyler Dellow's blog showed. The reaction to his blog was instantaneous. He essentially broke a story that TSN, CBC and others had to comment on. That's big. No one can realistically say that Greg Wyshynski isn't a big voice in the hockey world. Still, even he doesn't give himself enough credit. He said this a couple hours ago on his live chat:

"I think we're more like entertainment writers. That isn't to say we're not journalists. It's to say the guys who roll up their sleeves and start preaching about hard-nosed reporting are talking about covering a form of entertainment -- not Afghanistan."

He's right on both counts -- he's writing about a form of entertainment, and that doesn't mean he's not a journalist. While his blog is more editorial than news, he still holds himself to a standard of factual consistency. He's been known to fix any mistake he makes. This is what journalists are supposed to do.

Journalists are supposed to be better than bloggers. I can see right now a bunch of comments telling me that isn't necessarily true, and they'd be right, but it's supposed to be true. I can happily say that I think over 100 people read my comments on the Colin Campbell emails. Bob McKenzie and Damien Cox have thousands upon thousands of readers. They should be held to a higher standard.

Edit: a portion of this article has been removed due to its inaccuracy regarding newspaper headlines and who is responsible for writing them. It has been fixed based on comments and criticisms we have received.

It's clear from his tweets that Damien Cox believes in a higher standard:

"All this 'news' abt Colin Campbell and internal NHL emails was reported months ago by The Star's Rob Cribb" "Cribb did a series of stories. Did background reported. Also asked Campbell for comment. That's called journalism."

But journalism also includes investigative reporting of the sort Tyler Dellow did, when he uncovered and investigated the e-mails nine months later. It was a lucky find, but what he did with it was both journalistic and skilfully so.

Dellow could only do this because the information was public. Rob Cribb could have done it nine months ago. And unlike Cribb, Tyler Dellow probably couldn't call Colin Campbell for comment and expect him to respond. Journalists have the name recognition and the widespread readership that allows them access to the people they cover, and yet they squander this by merely calling for quotes rather than doing real investigative work. Cox, your thoughts?

"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."

Is it really unclear why the people weren't up in arms when Cribb wrote his stories, Cox? Here, let me help: his stories didn't demonstrate that Colin Campbell clearly had a grudge against Marc Savard and that he was taking an active role in decisions regarding those who referee his son's games.

Journalists have a massive influence and therefore a massive responsibility to their readers. They must know the facts and be clear in their reporting of them so readers finish their articles being more informed than they were before. To borrow a phrase, "That's called journalism."

If Colin Campbell is returning your call, and not mine, then I expect you to adhere to a higher standard than I do, and when you fail, you offend me and everyone else who would love to have your job and do it better. When it comes down to it, a sportswriter's job isn't based on his hockey knowledge. Most sportswriters don't know more about sports statistics, rules and history than the average diehard fan, and the information is readily available to anyone with google. The sportscasters watch the same games we do. The thing that sets sports reporters apart is supposed to be their ability to communicate clearly and their journalistic experience. When they fall down on that job, they're cheapening the profession. Not everyone can go to Afghanistan to write a three-part story on the war, poverty and terrorism, but any sports fan can watch a hockey game and report the score.

That's why it's infuriating to see a paid professional sports writer who doesn't know the difference between compliment and complement. It's why it bothers me so much to see bad, over-used headline puns on the TSN front page. And it's why it broke my heart to see Bob McKenzie say something that wasn't true, and then make no correction when it was pointed out to him.

Bob McKenzie's take on the Colin Campbell e-mails was wrong on many levels. It addressed the wrong issue of the Savard-Cooke hit and lack of suspension, and Campbell's role in issuing suspensions. He never addressed the issue of Colin Campbell using his influence to protect his son from referees.

Worse, he was factually incorrect:

"As for the emails, [...] nothing was ever acted on, that we're aware of, because the referees that Colin Campbell complained about to Walkom, they're still working in the National Hockey League."

His argument was that these e-mails weren't a big deal, because they didn't lead to anyone's firing. As I've said before, these e-mails were used as evidence to show why Dean Warren was fired. In other words, it's the official position of the NHL that, contrary to McKenzie's assertions, the e-mails were acted on and resulted in the firing of Dean Warren, which is a very big deal.

In the blog post I originally made, I made a factual error, as well. No one messaged me about it, but when reading Tyler Dellow's follow-up, I realized I'd made an error and went back to fix it. Bob McKenzie, on the other hand, has had days to fix his error, and has several people informing him of it, including myself, and has failed to make any kind of correction.

I've always loved Bob McKenzie, but he should know better. He pointed out in a tweet today that he follows Canadian Press style. That's great. But if you're going to boast about following the same stylistic rules as the collective of Canadian journalists, can't you follow the same journalistic principles when it comes to making sure you don't accidentally misinform people, and that you issue a correction whenever you become aware of your mistake? Sadly, this whole issue has been eye-opening for me. If Bob McKenzie isn't going to behave like a real journalist, why should I take him more seriously than, say, Matthew Barnaby, who's at least played the game in the NHL?

To a degree, I understand. Bill Daly chose to speak to TSN about the Colin Campbell e-mails first. That's a big scoop for TSN, and you don't want to bite the hand that feeds you. That said, if a few early quotes are the price of your journalistic integrity, there wasn't much to begin with.

The point? I've given two examples of bloggers who were acting more like journalists than the real thing. Rob Cribb, Damien Cox and sadly, Bob McKenzie have fallen down on the job. It's bloggers like Tyler Dellow who have done the actual investigative work, and it saddens me that the real journalists aren't willing to show the same journalistic integrity and discipline.

The Wrong Questions: Colin Campbell and the Media's Poor Response

So the story about Colin "Lord Chaos" Campbell's e-mails has been active for about a full day. Originally, I elected to bite my tongue, confident that the right questions would be asked. How wrong I was.

To those who aren't familiar with this story, hockey blogger Tyler Dellow posted an article yesterday (Sunday) that started this whole thing. Dellow had found this court decision on a wrongful firing suit filed by former NHL referee Dean Warren. Warren claimed he was fired for his union work, so the NHL had to show evidence of his failures as a referee. To do so, they submitted into evidence, among other things, several e-mails between Colin Campbell and then-Director of Officiating Stephen Walkom. These e-mails had been redacted, but some had enough details that they could be traced back.

Dellow, after what I'd imagine was a great deal of investigative work, pinned down two specific penalties. The one that got the most attention was a call in which Campbell's son, Gregory Campbell, was given a high-sticking penalty against Marc Savard. Campbell called Marc Savard a "fake artist" and just showed a general dislike for the guy. There were two specific charges that followed -- that Campbell was unfairly biased towards his son, and that he was unfairly biased against Marc Savard, and that this affected his judgment when deciding to suspend Matt Cooke.

What's been said about this? TSN's Bob McKenzie said this:

"There's no question that there's a perception of inappropriate behavior when Colin Campbell sends an email within the office to Director of Officiating at the time Stephen Walkom. As for the specific charge that maybe Marc Savard would not get a fair shake in the Matt Cooke hearing when Matt Cooke delivered the knockout blow to him because Colin Campbell called him a little faker at some point I can only tell you this: I don't have e-mails to prove it, but I would venture a very strong guess that whatever Colin Campbell and the NHL Hockey Operations Department think of the way Matt Cooke plays the game is far worse than whatever Marc Savard would be deemed in terms of being a 'little faker.'"

He then went on to cite the Cooke-Savard hearing as an example of Campbell's integrity. I sort of agree on that point -- Campbell probably wanted to get Matt Cooke and didn't.

Elliotte Friedman of cbcsports.ca had this seemingly-relevant tidbit to contribute:

"The key thing to note here is that the emails in question were exchanged three years ago. On March 29, 2009, Steve Ott nearly decapitated Colin's son, Gregory Campbell. Ott, a repeat offender, was given no suspension."

That would be very interesting if Campbell had anything to do with that hearing. Campbell, of course, recused himself. Safeguards exist to prevent his ruling on hits on his own son.

What about Greg Wyshynski of Puck Daddy?

"I believe those holding up emails that deal with his son and malign the reputation of Marc Savard of the Bostin Bruins as a smoking gun that Campbell's been unfair to him are, ironically, being unfair to Colin Campbell [...] We don't have evidence that his personal feelings on Marc Savard (oddly not addressed in the TSN statement) contributed to any action taken (or not taken) in cases with which Savard's been involved."

Again, this is true, but missing the point, although to his credit, Wyshnyski does spend a lot of time on the real concern. The one that's been all but ignored.

Of course Colin Campbell didn't let his grudges impact his decision not to suspend Matt Cooke. Campbell isn't that kind of idiot. Campbell would never use his power to further his personal grudges. That's a sure-fire way to get caught.

The evidence shows, though, that while Campbell didn't abuse his power, he did abuse his position.

Being the Senior Vice President and Director of Hockey Operations means you have more than just official power, you have implied power. People tend to do what their boss says, rather than questioning whether he's allowed to tell them to do that. On numerous occasions, as I'll show in a minute, Colin Campbell wrote furious e-mails to Stephen Walkom, his subordinate, about calls made against his son. Campbell's explanation was ridiculous:

"Stephen and I would have banter back and forth and Stephen knows I'm a (hockey) dad venting and both of us knowing it wouldn't go any further than that. Stephen would laugh at me."

Really? Let's take a look at this "venting." Keep in mind that these e-mails aren't the only ones that took place -- they're just the only ones with Dean Warren's name on them.

The following is an e-mail from Colin Campbell to Stephen Walkom that took place in October 2006. The names and dates were redacted Some expletives have been cleverly replaced, and are marked in green.

"Are you trying to f____ with my head? Sending this guy back into …..after the …..call and others? Have you talked to him yet and have you seen the penalty he called on [player]? Should I call him? Talk to [another referee] he will tell you the [pony poo] game Warren had and how hard it was to work with him. This guy is in serious trouble. He will be in trouble as soon as [coach or general manager] sees him tonight…they will think you are shoving it up their [fanny]. Maybe you should call [general manager] as a pre-emptive strike but talk to Warren first."

Wow, Colin Campbell is MAD at Dean Warren, seemingly for a specific call. Obviously, from the e-mail, Dean Warren is about to officiate a game with a team he's just made very angry. Of course, with names and dates redacted, it would be impossible to figure out when this occurred. Fortunately, we at Pass it to Bulis have noted that the court ruling supplies the date for us:

"The first contact which occurred after Mr. Warren’s election to the OA executive was on October 23, 2006. The names of players, coaches, club officials and teams have been redacted."

Splendid! This e-mail happened on October 23. From the comment, "He will be in trouble as soon as [coach or general manager] sees him tonight," it's clear that this refers to a game Warren was going to officiate on the 23rd. In other words, this game, between the Florida Panthers and the Atlanta Thrashers. Warren has clearly done something to anger one of these two teams recently.

So what was Dean Warren's mistake that was so egregious that Campbell was furious he'd be sent back to officiate another game with the same teams? The only other time so far that season that Warren had been at a Panthers or Thrashers game was on October 21st, between the two of them. It was a home-and-home series. This is the box score for that game.

So what, right? As Greg Wyshynski has pointed out, part of Colin Campbell's job is to assist the Director of Officiating in oversight of the referees. The only problem is, Gregory Campbell was playing for the Panthers, so Colin Campbell was complaining about a penalty that may have cost his son the game.

As Tyler Dellow pointed out in this later post, Bill Daly seemed pretty certain that this kind of thing wouldn't occur:

"Because of the potential for a conflict of interest, or more importantly a perceived conflict of interest, the League has implemented various structural protections that prohibit Colie from having any oversight or disciplinary authority relating to any game in which his son, Gregory, plays. Its always fair to question and criticize League decisions as being wrong, but not on the basis that they aren't justly and fairly arrived at."

Well, maybe Colin Campbell really was just ranting to a friend, right? Wrong. Walkom responded:

"Spoke with [general manager] and spoke with dean …."

So Colin Campbell's ranting led directly to the referee at that game getting a call from his boss about it, right before officiating another of the games in which Colin Campbell's son, Gregory, played. Despite Daly's carefully-worded insistence that the rules say Colin Campbell can't influence the officiating in his son's games, the evidence clearly shows that he has.

It gets worse, as the penalty that had Colin Campbell up in arms about Marc Savard was actually called on his son Gregory. Here was the NHL disciplinarian's reaction. I have numbered portions of it for easy reference:

"A bend in the road is a dead end if you round the corner and Dean Warren is standing there. Your answer re: his high stick calls and the score of the game were [the feces of an equine]. 1) The 3rd call on [player] was while they were down 5 on 4 and on a def zone face off vs that little fake artist [player] I had him in [city] biggest faker going. And Warren fell for it when he grabbed his face on a face off. Your supposed to see the act, not call the embellishing act. 2) Dean Warren has to go with [referee] There must be a way to get rid of this guy. Is there a way we can tract (sic) and total minors called by referees this year. We could then get the minors they call per game. … or with 2 [referees on the ice] it is impossible? 3) Warren and [referee] out of [club’s] games. Give them to [referees]."

Wow, Campbell is mad here, too. By far, the most-discussed part of the e-mail was part 1. People unfortunately tended to look at what it means and not what it is. Don't look at it to determine Campbell's opinion of Marc Savard and if that would cause him to act with bias. Look what Campbell is saying to the then-current Director of Officiating, and his subordinate: Marc Savard is a horrible faker. This comment is clearly influenced both by his coaching of Savard in New York and his anger over his son's being assessed a bad penalty. Neither of these things should be factors when talking to the boss of every NHL referee. Suppose that Campbell's comments here are biased, and that they in some way influenced Stephen Walkom's decisions as head of officiating? Wouldn't that, right there, constitute an abuse of his position?

But it gets worse. Here, in this e-mail, Campbell states "Dean Warren has got to go" (2). Cats and kittens, here we have direct evidence that Campbell's decision that Dean Warren must be fired was influenced by a call he made against his son. Right there. It's fortunate for Campbell that the names and dates were redacted and that Warren's attorney apparently didn't catch who this call was made against, because in a wrongful termination suit, this e-mail would be solid gold. "Your honor, this e-mail proves that I was fired not for making a mistake, but for making a mistake that negatively affected the son of the Director of Hockey Operations."

But even if that wasn't the only factor in his firing, look what happens at the end of the message (3). Colin Campbell says, straight up, Warren isn't allowed to referee a certain club (presumably either Florida or Boston). Let's make sure to get the word out to all NHL'ers. Get a bad call against you? Colin Campbell will be there to make sure that referee never calls your game again. Or does that privilege only apply to those who are his son?

Keep in mind that according to the court case, the first e-mails in October are when things seemed to go sour for Dean Warren. Also consider that after these events came this little gem, an e-mail from Campbell to Walkom with apparently some video of Dean Warren:

"Can we use this [dookie] [the emailed clip] to remove him or is there an HR excuse."

This e-mail makes it fairly clear that Campbell is already trying to get Warren fired. He's asking if he can use the clip to accomplish the goal of removing Warren. The question of whether Warren should be removed is not discussed.

Also, keep in mind Steve Walkom's comments regarding potentially using numbers to remove Dean Warren:

"I think we have that data but it may work in his favour. That why I'm against data."

So here's a conversation in which Steve Walkom is telling an angry Colin Campbell that the numbers don't justify firing Dean Warren, and trying to help his boss to find an excuse to fire him. Does Walkom really think Warren deserves to go, or is he just trying to please his superior?

Again, let's look back to some things that were said about this. Here's Bob McKenzie on the e-mails to Walkom:

"As for the emails, and sending them to Stephen Walkom, that's inappropriate behavior, and it gives the perception. Now, nothing was ever acted on, that we're aware of, because the referees that Colin Campbell complained about to Walkom, they're still working in the National Hockey League."

That's simply not true. In fact, two of the three e-mails we have about calls on Gregory Campbell refer to Dean Warren. Not only was he fired, these very same e-mails were used in trial as evidence of Warren's shortcomings as a referee. In other words, they were shown in court as the reason Dean Warren was fired. Not only can we say that one of the referees in these e-mails lost his job, the NHL asserts that he lost his job because of incidents in these e-mails.

Greg Wyshynski:

"You can't tell the fans and media that Gregory Campbell is persona non grata in your role as NHL VP of hockey operations and then inquire about penalties he's been given with an email to the director of officiating. You're saying one thing, doing another, and "just a hockey dad venting" doesn't absolve that; if he's off-limits then he's off-limits."

Well put. Unfortunately, it goes farther than "inquiring" about penalties Gregory Campbell's been given. So far, he's had a referee removed from games because of a penalty regarding his son. He also may have attempted to negatively influence a player's reputation among officials while angry for his son, and he's used these penalties to get at least one NHL referee fired.

That's more than just egg on your face. Let's hope Dean Warren sues for wrongful termination again, this time for unfair favoritism.

But of all these e-mails, perhaps the most damning is the third one. This one was, again, from Colin Campbell to Stephen Walkom:

"Game not televised. Radio announcers said it was a [male bovine manure] penalty…you need to find out for me. How…I don’t know but this was awful. 1:30 left in 2-1 game for [team] and [player] scored with 2 second left to tie it up them won in OT. [MAKE LOVE TO]"

Now, Colin Campbell insisted this message was just banter, but Walkom clearly took the "you need to find out for me" seriously. He responded that he'd find out. Less than an hour later, Campbell is nagging him about it.

"Did you find out anything? It was [another referee] that made the call. Keep Warren and gas this [doodoo]head. 90 seconds left and he calls a weak penalty…tripping. Makes me sick. If I was at the game I would have had to fine me."

So a couple points on this. First, and most damning, is that Campbell is clearly very upset about a call he never saw. He heard from the radio announcers, he says, that the call was bad. Are we to believe that every time Colin Campbell hears someone claim a call is bad, he immediately e-mails the Director of Officiating to investigate? Absolutely not. Further, Campbell says to "gas" the guy who made the call. While he's indicated that he hasn't seen the play, he's willing to go after the referee who made the call.

Tyler Dellow's words on this e-mail:

"The player who was penalized? None other than Gregory Campbell. Brian Pochmara and Don VanMassenhoven were the referees in that game and both are, as far as I can tell, still NHL referees."

So no one got fired over this call. I guess that's good, because it's a dangerous precedent for the Director of Hockey Operations to get a referee fired over a call, then watch it. Still, once again, this e-mail is regarding Gregory Campbell, and daddy is very upset when referees call penalties on him.

So what questions SHOULD people like Bob McKenzie, Elliotte Friedman, Greg Wyshynski and other big name hockey commentators be asking? How about these:

• Is it true that, as was suggested by the ruling of Warren v. National Hockey League, that penalties called against Gregory Campbell were a major factor in his father's pushing for Warren's firing?
• How often does Colin Campbell bar referees from officiating for certain clubs after a bad call?
• How often does Colin Campbell direct his subordinate, the Director of Officiating, to investigate calls against his son?
• How often do calls against Gregory Campbell influence his father's decisions regarding which NHL referees should be let go?
• How often does Colin Campbell complain to the Director of Officiating about calls he has not even seen, and what percentage of these incidents related to his son?

Forget Marc Savard. Forget Matt Cooke. Colin Campbell is unfairly using his position as the Director of Officiating's superior to help his son, and to fire at least one referee who's wronged him. That's where the story should be.

NOTE: Speaking of corrections, this blog has been edited. Originally, it erroneously speculated that the call from October 21st had been one on Gregory Campbell. After I wrote it, I read Tyler Dellow's follow-up, in which he referenced a comment of mine, and a later comment that wasn't visible after his site went down. The later comment, from Colby Cosh, demonstrated that the penalty that had Colin Campbell up in arms on October 23rd was not called on his son, but his son's teammate, Martin Gelinas. I had previously narrowed down the call to be either on Gregory Campbell or Martin Gelinas, and Cosh's clever investigation of headlines from that night determined which it was. However, as Dellow pointed out, this is still a clear instance of Campbell directly affecting his son's games, which Bill Daly insisted never occurs. While the point remains very-much intact, it would be criminal not to fix factual errors whenever they're caught. Much credit to Dellow and Cosh for their superb work.