By WILLIAM HOUSTON
Wednesday, January 22, 2003
– Page S1
The CBC's Disclosure last night revisited the issue of bodychecking for nine-year-olds in minor hockey after the Canadian Hockey Association denounced the show's original report a week ago.
Last night, CHA spokesperson Johnny Misley, angry over what he felt was the "confrontational" approach of CBC reporter Mark Kelley, cut off an interview but then returned, accompanied by another CHA staffer.
At issue is a study that supported the CHA's decision to reinstate, after a 20-year ban, bodychecking for players as young as nine years old. The initiative came from John Gardner, the head of the Greater Toronto Hockey League and a long-time advocate of bodychecking for children.
Never mind that bodychecking is likely to (a) cause injuries; (b) sour kids on hockey, because the smaller, talented players get pushed around by peers twice their size; and (c) inhibit skill development, because the little guys are too busy looking over their shoulders to see when they're going to get hammered to worry about things such as actually having fun and developing skills.
And never mind the GTHL's own shabby record of coaching and parental abuse or Gardner's tenure as head of arguably the most controversial youth hockey league in the world.
Gardner wanted bodychecking for the little kids, so he found a researcher at Lakehead University to produce a report that claimed it did not increase the risk of injury.
The problem was, the report, which the CHA eagerly endorsed and put on the books, was botched. Disclosure's research discovered that the data actually showed the reverse -- that injuries went up four times when bodychecking was introduced. The reaction from the study's author, Bill Montelpare of Lakehead, as reported by the CBC, could be summed up as: Oops, guess I made a mistake. Sorry about that.
Gardner looked worse. In the first clip, before being informed about the flaw in the study, he stated, smugly, that he had been willing to reject bodychecking if the study had shown it increased injuries. Then the CBC informed him the data showed exactly that.
"What are you going to do about it?" Kelley asked.
Gardner stiffened and said defiantly, "Nothing," although he said he resented paying money for a bad report.
We put in a telephone call to CHA president Bob Nicholson, but it was returned by Misley.
Would Nicholson come to the phone?
"I'm the spokesperson for the CHA," Misley said.
Yes, but will Nicholson discuss this?
"I'm the spokesperson for the CHA as determined by Bob," Misley said.
Okay. So, Nicholson has decided to hide. This is a guy who is happy to accept, even seek, media attention when it puffs him up, such as in photo ops with Walter Gretzky, Wayne's dad, in interviews with CNN during the CHA's ad campaign against parental abuse, or when a Canadian team wins a tournament.
It was left to Misley to provide the spin. He said the CBC story was inaccurate.
"We reworked the numbers and there's no statistical difference [between injuries in hockey without bodychecking and hockey with bodychecking]," he said. "We had two independent researchers look at it and analyze the numbers. They came up with the same conclusion."
Really? We called one of the independent researchers, Bill Roberts, a family physician and specialist in sports medicine who lives near St. Paul, Minn. Roberts has conducted several studies on youth hockey in conjunction with the University of Minnesota.
Roberts' conclusion? The CBC was right.
"In self-reporting data, there was a four-fold increase in injuries between the non-bodychecking and bodychecking," he said.
"Looking at the studies I've been involved with and other research in ice hockey injuries at the youth level, whenever checking is introduced the injury rates go up.
"Intentional body contact just raises injuries."
Furthermore, Roberts said bodychecking inhibits the skill development of children and increases the dropout rate.
"My personal feeling is, from the studies we did in the early 1990s, is they should raise the age of bodychecking [to as high as 16 years]," he said. "That would give kids the chance to develop the skills, grow and become more equal in terms of their size and strength, and more equal in terms of their motor skills. More people would stay involved in hockey for a longer time."
The second independent researcher, David Brooks, a sports medicine physician based in Summerland, B.C., and a team doctor for two junior clubs, denies telling the CHA that the disparity between injuries in hockey with bodychecking and hockey without bodychecking was "insignificant statistically."
Brooks said he has fought against lowering the age of bodychecking for years.
"Bodychecking is part of the game," he said. "But to believe that teaching it to nine-year-olds is necessary is ludicrous. I see for myself the skilled, but smaller hockey players gravitating towards other sports."
Roberts said he, too, notices talented children dropping out.
"If it isn't fun, you quit," he said.
Still, given the similarity in skill requirements for skating and cross-country skiing, Roberts said there is a benefit to Canadian hockey losing its most talented athletes.
"You could end up with the greatest nordic ski team in the world," he said.
It's worth noting that the CHA's research council was strongly opposed to the association lowering the age of bodychecking and resigned en masse when the move was made.
The CHA leadership handled this issue ineptly at the beginning and continues to do so.
truth@globeandmail.ca
|
Headline Index
