pick a topic, any topic

It seems my Thursday six words exercise (Words don't always come so easily) is well-established in my mind. I just don't feel the desire to write this week; it seems I have finally come to understand what writers mean when they say that they have to force themselves to write. Up until last week, I couldn't figure out these brainstorming/word association/freewriting exercises were for. I mean, you just had to pick a topic and go. Except there doesn't seem to be any go to be had...

So I'll pick a topic. Any topic. Because one of the neat things about my original writing journal was that since topics often occurred to me, say, one station before the end of the commute, or just as class was about to start, I created a page of "topics to be discussed at a later date". Now, some of these really are stories I want to put down in writing, some of these are books, movies, music I want to share, and some are issues that I want to use writing as a crutch to my thinking process.

One such topic is whether disgraced athletes should have their professional accomplishments recognized. This topic came about after Patrick Roy, possibly the greatest goaltender in Habs history, as a coach encouraged his players, particularly his son, also a goaltender, to take part in a bench-clearing on-ice brawl. His son complied, and skated across the entire rink to beat up the other goaltender, who refused to fight, staying in his semi-circle, and merely defended himself against the rain of blows.

Disgraceful? Sure. Enough not to retire Roy's number or bar him from the Hall of Fame? I don't know.

Same argument for Michael Vick. Chris Benoit. The list goes on.

It's been almost ten months since Chris Benoit killed his wife and son before hanging himself off a piece of fitness equipment in his home. I taped that week's Raw and Smackdown (as I always do) onto the hard disk of my DVD recorder. I still haven't erased them, but I still haven't transferred them onto DVD. I don't even want to deal with it yet.

Getting back to Roy, should he be inducted?

Well, the criteria, according to the Hockey Hall of Fame, is "Playing ability, sportsmanship, character and their contribution to the team or teams and to the game of hockey in general."

Playing ability? Check.

Contribution to the team or teams and to the game of hockey in general? Check.

Sportsmanship? As a player, he was, as we say in French, "baveux". His intense competitive streak is well-known. Heck, how many other players do you know have called for a trade mid-game like he did? As a coach, well...Unfortunately, I gotta say no on this one.

Character? I'm not sure where to draw the line between sportsmanship and character, to be honest...I think back to the time he's been investigated for domestic abuse. I think back again to his exit from Montreal. And now, this instigation to his son, which was clearly over the line.

If anything, though, his competitiveness might be what allowed him to reach the greatest heights as a player, but it is also his downfall.

So, in the end, score is tied. So which is more important? The player, or the person?

Is it more of a disgrace to sport to recognize people who have done bad things, or to preclude sport-related exploits because people have done bad things? Talk about records with asterisks, man...I wonder how many current inductees have skeletons in their closets, their only saving grace being that they played before the current days of media frenzy?

I wish I had an answer. I really do.

(619)