Play Fantasy The Most Award Winning Fantasy game with real time scoring, top expert analysis, custom settings, and more. Play Now
Blog Entry

Ex-fighters consider 'further recourse' on Cherry

Posted on: October 11, 2011 10:53 am
Edited on: October 11, 2011 10:58 am
 

By Brian Stubits

Stu Grimson, Chris Nilan and Jim Thomson, the players mentioned by Don Cherry during the now infamous first edition of Coach's Corner on CBC this season, are considering legal action against the always opinionated Cherry.

When making his stance known on fighting in the game (as if anybody wondered where Cherry could possibly fit in this conversation), he took a jab at a few of the former enforcers who discussed fighting after the deaths of Wade Belak, Derek Boogaard and Rick Rypien. In the process, Cherry said that the former players -- or "pukes" as he called them -- "reason that they're drinking drugs and alcoholic because they fight" before calling them turncoats and hypocrites.

Grimson and Nilan came out the next day and denied ever saying such things and wanted an apology from from Cherry. So in the second edition of Coach's Corner, Ron MacLean, Cherry's co-host, asked him if he had any regrets and this is what they got: “Well, maybe one, with the puke stuff ... it was rude.”

So now the three released a statement together through the firm where Grimson works now -- yes, he's an attorney -- explaining their beef.

“During CBC’s broadcast of Coach’s Corner on October 6, 2011, Don Cherry inserted himself into a prominent debate that involves the recent tragic deaths of three (3) NHL players, drug addiction, alcohol abuse and mental illness. In doing so, Mr. Cherry targeted the above-named individuals, some of whom have suffered from such diseases, as a result of views they previously expressed. Mr. Cherry’s comments were more than inappropriate; they were vulgar and malicious. Furthermore, Mr. Cherry’s subsequent attempt to qualify his comments on October 8, 2011, was entirely ineffectual. Mr. Cherry’s conduct throughout has demonstrated a complete lack of decency.

In light of the damaging and inflammatory nature of Mr. Cherry’s comments, Mssrs. Grimson, Nilan and Thomson are considering further recourse.”

Yes, further recourse could mean exactly what you were thinking. From Josh Cooper at the Tennessean:

“I’m sure what the intuitive reader is going to be asking is, ‘does further recourse include legal recourse?’ That is certainly true,” Grimson said. “Further recourse does include an investigation into what legal recourse might be available to this group. Whether or not we go in that direction is a completely separate matter. But, obviously given the nature of the comments and the forum for those comments, those two things, I think investigating what legal recourse is available is a prudent step.

“They [Cherry's remarks] were completely without a basis of fact,” Grimson said. “I never said any of the things that he said I said. I feel a little bit like the innocent victim in a drive-by shooting, standing there minding my own business and all of a sudden I’m reading ‘puke,’ ‘turncoat,’ ‘hypocrite,’ all these adjectives used to describe me.”

For their part, CBC's only statement on the matter has been that Cherry's views are his own only and don't reflect those of the CBC.

At this point, I can't imagine anything legal ever becomes of this. You have to imagine that Cherry will either decide to do it on his own or will receive a very strong push from the CBC to give a much bigger apology and retraction. Because while the threshold is high for a charge such as slander, they would likely be able to show a blantant disregard for the facts in this case. So the potential is probably real, meaning the threat carries some serious weight.

Photo: Getty Images

For more hockey news, rumors and analysis, follow @EyeOnHockey and @BrianStubitsNHL on Twitter.

Comments

Since: Oct 15, 2011
Posted on: October 15, 2011 9:28 am
 

Ex-fighters consider 'further recourse' on Cherry

Don Cherry is the best. He's an entertainer. If you're looking for words of wisdom, watch Dr. Phil.



Since: Mar 25, 2011
Posted on: October 13, 2011 9:53 am
 

Ex-fighters consider 'further recourse' on Cherry

Where is the news here?  A story about a what they might do?  Sounds like Obama!



Since: Oct 12, 2011
Posted on: October 12, 2011 7:16 pm
 

Ex-fighters consider 'further recourse' on Cherry

Sparek and all you Cherry haters: 

It doesn't get any better then Cherry.  He is an icon and a true Hockey legend.  It makes since that a Philly fan would call Cherry an ebarassment.  You city and sports teams and most importantly your fans are the biggest d@$che bags on the planet.  



Since: Sep 7, 2011
Posted on: October 12, 2011 7:01 pm
 

Ex-fighters consider 'further recourse' on Cherry

Sparek , read your little write and it was very amusing. Lol but sorry to hear you got a little D $&k , but that could just be because you. Are from Philly !! Go dream team.



Since: Sep 7, 2011
Posted on: October 12, 2011 6:55 pm
 

Ex-fighters consider 'further recourse' on Cherry

Grimson and Nilan should be happy , they got mentioned both where below average fighters who lost more than they won .... And oh my God some of what Cherry said has to be true ........ You see Chris Nilan. Damn he looks like John Candy now with all the weight he has put on. !!!!



Since: Sep 2, 2006
Posted on: October 12, 2011 6:31 pm
 

Ex-fighters consider 'further recourse' on Cherry

Don Cherry has been a disgrace since the day he was hired by CBC. He is nothing but a clown and should be removed immediately. Talk about puke. He makes me do that every time he opens his mouth. Last year he stated that Alex Ovechkin is nothing but a goon. A goon? One of the worlds best player is a goon? I would ahve fired him for his total lack of hockey knowledge, right then and there.



Since: Aug 18, 2006
Posted on: October 12, 2011 4:49 pm
 

Ex-fighters consider 'further recourse' on Cherry

Quoting Wikipedia? Anyway, you can thumb through hundreds or legitimate medical journals (hint: Wikipedia is not one of them) written by actual doctors and you’d get a 50/50 split on whether addiction is or is not a disease. Your comment on self control is not true. With things like drug or alcohol addiction it is no control. it is a matter of chemical dependence. Chemical dependence is when your body needs a substance (good or bad) to make its self feel ok. This is where you get "withdrawal" from. The body is no longer getting what it believes it "needs", thus making the body feel even worse than when it was on the substance that was actually harming it. Don’t worry Dex, this lesson was free.



Since: Dec 3, 2008
Posted on: October 12, 2011 4:08 pm
 

Ex-fighters consider 'further recourse' on Cherry

"Addiction IS a disease"

NO It isn't!

It's called "a lack of self control!"

 
From Wikipedia:

A disease is an abnormal condition affecting the body of an organism. It is often construed to be a medical condition associated with specific symptoms and signs.[1] It may be caused by external factors, such as infectious disease, or it may be caused by internal dysfunctions, such as autoimmune diseases.



Since: Jun 25, 2009
Posted on: October 12, 2011 3:46 pm
 

Ex-fighters consider 'further recourse' on Cherry

People need to stop calling drug abuse and alcoholism "diseases." They are choices. South Park did a great episode as Stan's dad suffered from the "disease" of alcoholism. He looked ridiculous as he moped around the house in a bath robe drinking beer. 

Wow !  Congratulations, you are now officially the dumbest person on CBS.   The fact you use South Park to educate yourself tells me everything I need to know so it shouldn't surprise me.  What's next, is family guy going to be your version of educational television?

Addiction IS a disease, and that's not my opinion that's a fact.   All people are different and everybody's system isn't alike, to say that a drink affects me the same way it affects everybody else is stupid.  Sure, maybe it was a choice to drink or do a particular drug the first time, but when somebody can't quit doing something without suffering from seizures or potentially dying if quitting cold turkey, it means they have a disease called addiction.

The only way you would be right is if anybody could do any drug they wanted and just quit whenever they feel like it without consequences, which anybody with a brain knows cannot always be done.  There are a lot of reasons why people get addicted to drugs and alcohol and although I'm not condoning it I think it's incredibly stupid to think they don't have a disease.

 



Since: Dec 29, 2006
Posted on: October 12, 2011 3:17 pm
 

Ex-fighters consider 'further recourse' on Cherry

People need to stop calling drug abuse and alcoholism "diseases." They are choices. South Park did a great episode as Stan's dad suffered from the "disease" of alcoholism. He looked ridiculous as he moped around the house in a bath robe drinking beer.

This is an insult to people who have actual diseases. They didn't bring this on themselves. They didn't CHOOSE to have a disease.

Stop coddling screw ups and start holding adults accountable for their choices and behavior.

The hockey players mentioned should find something better to do. I learned to ignore Don Cherry years ago.


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com