The only highlight of this half season of non-hockey was when Ryan Kesler tweeted “Yooo” at me. For 17 minutes I felt like a teenaged girl who was just retweeted by Justin Bieber. But the limerence was short-lived. There was still no hockey.

Unfortunately, all I’m left with at the end of this year in regards to hockey is a short list of jerks who irked me in one way or another. So without fanfare, here is my list of Biggest Dickheads Of 2012 in the world of hockey:

Gary Bettman and the NHL

Gary, Gary, Gary. What can I say that hasn’t already been said about this Supreme Dickhead and the owners who’ve once again fucked over fans, the league and all those who make a living from NHL games all over North America. For months hockey writers have been busy writing articles predicting when the NHL season would begin, all of them as wrong as the Mayan calendar predicting when the world would end. Day after day my Gregorian calendar keeps reminding me of hockey games that will never take place, and day after day my aversion for Bettman grows. I’m now forced to stay up half the night just to watch World Junior Championship hockey, which is nice, but not nearly as satisfying as watching my favorite team and players on the ice. Plus, the crazy hours and lack of sleep is making me even crankier.

You may wonder why Donald Fehr isn’t on my dickheads list, because every time I bitch about Bettman I get a few “don’t forget Donald Fehr” replies. While Fehr may carry some of the blame for the continual breakdown in negotiations, I feel Bettman and the owners he represents are largely to blame. The players felt they were royally screwed over after the last lockout, so it’s not surprising that they’re holding their ground more firmly this time around to avoid a repeat.

Paul Bissonnette and the BizNasties

For someone who is a hockey celebrity, makes millions, has a privileged life and relishes his bad-boy image, you’d think Paul Bissonnette (@BizNasty2point0) from the Coyotes could handle the occasional insult lobbed at him on Twitter with a little bit of maturity and humor. Instead he sometimes lashes out at his target with digs and barbs that are cruel and personal at times, putting the “nasty” in BizNasty.

While chatting with a few people about a recent BizNasty Twitter tantrum, I called him an “insufferable prick” and a “spoiled brat.” Both, I think, accurate assessments of his behavior on Twitter. He happened to notice, made a snarky comment and then re-tweeted my tweet to his legion of mouth-breathing accolytes who proceeded to pelt me with a barrage of hateful, homophobic comments. For three days. I’m a big boy and no stranger to anti-gay taunts and bullying, so, I took my lumps and Paul got his pound of flesh out of me by letting others do the dirty work for him.

A few people tried to convince me that Paul is a cool guy in person, and perhaps he is, but, he and some of his followers are definitely gigantic dickheads on Twitter.

Ryan Lambert

Ryan (@twolinepass) is a hockey blogger for Yahoo Sports who’s Twitter bio reads, “your favorite team sucks, your favorite player sucks, you suck.” He’s a self-described troll who prods and provokes others with outrageous comments and juvenile name-calling, like Beavis & Butthead, but a lot less funny. His fawning over BizNasty, who’s sophomoric antics are regularly featured in his posts on Yahoo Sports with loving adulation, might make you a little squeamish.

You’d think someone as sharp-tongued as he — who frequently refers to people as “dumbasses,” “assholes,” and “shitlords” — wouldn’t be as thin-skinned as his Nasty idol. But after sparring a few times with Ryan on Twitter, he eventually blocked me because I “shit-talk” him all the time. This is clearly a person who is as humorless as his posts on Twitter, and who takes himself a wee bit too seriously.

While I actually agree with Ryan about lots of political and social issues, he needs to lighten up or get off the ice if he can’t handle the body checks he likes to dish out.

Tim Thomas

This starts to veer into that taboo topic of politics. But it’s only because Tim Thomas, former goaltender for the Boston Bruins, put his Tea Party politics front and center over the past year by making his disdain for President Obama and support of Chick-fil-A’s anti-gay stance publicly known.

When heaped with criticism, he pulled the prima-donna routine. He refused to answer questions or cut interviews short and stormed away as soon as he was asked to comment further about his political views. Then he bailed on the Bruins and decided to take a year off from professional hockey. In light of the current lockout, that may not have been such a bad idea, but, in the eyes of many Bruins fans he went from being a superstar to a colossal dickhead.

@Strombone1

I know I’m going to get hell from other Canucks fans for this one. But I find this mysterious @strombone1 Twitter account that is not Luongo, but actually is, but isn’t, tedious and dickish.

If it really is you, Roberto, then just come out of your Twitter closet already and stop playing this ridiculous game of hide-and-seek. It may have been cute and fun for a year or two, but, now it’s just downright annoying and creepy because most people now believe it’s actually you, so, why keep up the silly charade? What are you afraid of? Plenty of other celebrities bigger than you are on Twitter being jackasses, but you are actually funny. Or do you want to be the Greta Garbo of goalies?

Luongo and his wry sense of humor would get a shit-ton more followers, and wouldn’t have to beg dickheads like BizNasty to follow him, if he kept tweeting what he tweets now using a verified account. Otherwise, the ambiguously anonymous goalie gig is getting old.

Shapsters

You’ve seen them on Twitter incessantly using their concocted word “shap” and calling people they dislike “milts” or referring to others as “b” (e.g., you mad, b?).

I call them Shapsters. They think they are hip and cool, but they are just irritatingly cliquey. No one really knows what the hell they’re talking about most of the time. They have tweetups they call “shapups” and created the eye-roll-inducing “Shapys” which apparently gives out awards for who knows what, probably Miltiest Shapper or something equally dopey. Even Luongo (as strombone1) is parroting this shap crap and has become their Patron Saint of Shap. Shapsters, just close your bazoo already.

Don Cherry

Don Cherry (@CoachsCornerCBC) is a hockey legend and a legendary curmudgeon who says some pretty outrageous shit on national TV here in Canada.

He calls people he disagrees with “pukes” or “pinkos,” and his disdain for French-Canadians and Europeans is well known. He’s also an advocate for fighting in hockey and openly railed against Brendan Shanahan for cracking down on it with severe suspensions, as well as a few former hockey enforcers who spoke out against fighting. The backlash he received for being such a dick forced him to make a rare apology on the air a week later.

Cherry’s one redeeming quality is that he has a sense of humor about himself. Anyone who wears Elton John hand-me-downs on TV to talk about hockey doesn’t take himself too seriously (perhaps Ryan Lambert should start wearing obnoxious clothing, too). It’s why people either love him or hate him. He may be a dickhead but at least he’s an entertaining one.

Christopher R. Barron

The last, but not least, dickhead is Chris Barron (@ChrisRBarron), co-founder of GOProud, the gay Republican organization that supported Mitt Romney and his anti-gay party platform in the recent U.S. Presidential election. Believe it or not, Chris is gay. He also happens to be a hockey fan who likes the Pittsburgh Penguins, a good hockey team with one of my favorite players, the delightfully dreamy Sid Crosby.

Chris doesn’t seem to have a problem interacting with the hateful conservative zealots of his chosen political party, such as their official “Gay Icon” Anne Coulter. But when it comes to debating fellow hockey-loving homos about his questionable support for politicians who’d prefer that gays stay in the closet, he can’t handle it and blocks us, including PuckBuddys. Oh the lively, chirpy political and hockey debates that could have been if he weren’t such a GOPathetic dickhead.

Today, I sit down with everyone’s favorite THN writer, Adam Proteau. Adam has been with The Hockey News since 1999, and serves as the radio host for their show on XM.  This interview is a follow-up on Adam’s book that came out this year, Fighting the Good Fight, which is available for purchase here. This interview also serves as a counterpoint to my trilogy on fighting, the first part of which is available here. Without any further adieu, here we go!

VP: Your most recent book, Fighting the Good Fight, is it fair to view this as a symbolic response to Ross Bernstein’s The Code?

AP: You can interpret it any way you like, but I didn’t intend it as a rebuttal of The Code, which I haven’t read. I wrote it as a polemic intended to challenge the core assumptions and what I believe to be the dogma of the hockey world. Much of that includes the so-called Code, something I just don’t believe in. But other elements of the book deal with the hockey culture surrounding visors and concussions, which obviously aren’t Code-connected.

Bertuzzi – Moore “On Ince Depravity”

VP: As a mere pup at the time, the Bertuzzi-Moore Assault which you discussed in-depth literally changed the way I viewed the sport’s issues with player control. Is it fair to describe that as a watershed moment in the way the league regarded the severity to which on ice incidents could escalate?

AP: No, to be honest, I don’t think NHL management and ownership has arrived at that moment. The nonsense between the Isles and Penguins in 2011 showed how things can still escalate, yet the league more or less shrugs its shoulders. That said, the Bertuzzi/Moore incident could still have an influence on policy, as Moore’s court case this fall will bring the league and game under an unforgiving and unsympathetic light.

VP: In my response to your book, I labeled Don Cherry a War Profiteer given his good old hockey game mentality and the substantial income he made off fights while he now bashes the fighters who want to see reforms. Do you feel that’s an accurate portrayal of Cherry and his ilk? Your thoughts on their demonization of former enforcers who have spoken out, i.e., Grimson, Thompson and Laraque?

AP: I don’t know I’d use that exact term, but I agree with the overall characterization of him as someone who profits immensely off the style of hockey he so fervently touts. He has to be credited for being a savvy businessman, but as an ambassador to the sport some people claim him to be, he’s been an abject disaster. Good ambassadors don’t scapegoat entire groups of people simply to build themselves up in the eyes of one particular group of people. And the fact he lashes out at anyone who dissents from his views is an indication of how much he must fear having them seriously questioned. He has been more of a hindrance than help to the overall game.

VP: You talked quite a bit about your rough and tumble past in the sport, and I get the notion of being a “changed man”, but are you going to tell me that if someone recklessly boarded one of your friends in a game tomorrow you wouldn’t want to drop the gloves? That’s where the problem lies for me. I have no problem with a clean, honest fight in response to something that occurs during the flow of the game. I left with the impression you don’t either. You’ve been on the bench after a fight. Can you deny it gets everyone going? Do you think even ‘hockey reformists’ accept it as part of the game?

AP: Hey, there’s no denying the visceral thrill of sticking up for a teammate. But you could say the same in any sport, if those sports allowed it. Who wouldn’t want to smack around Ron Artest after his elbow to the back of an opponent’s head? But the NBA draws a line, and that doesn’t mean that fights don’t still happen there. But they are punished appropriately, it is a means of last resort. And that’s what I’d like to see more of in hockey.

Right now, it’s institutionalized as a first resort, partly because leagues refuse to do their duty and curb dirty play overall, and partly because there’s a financial industry built around it. So if, one day, we get to a point where pro hockey players can still fight, but only if it’s really worth it, because a game misconduct will follow, as will increasing suspensions for repeat offenders I’ll be happy.

VP: Fighting aside, I come down on the league for It’s failure to look “big picture” at its subtle evolutions. We now have faster players,stronger players, more imperviously equipped guys flying around without a redline slamming into each other at full speed. All these factors have led to a staggering uptick in concussions as the league has moved to a speed/offense dominated game. Is it time to rein it in? What should be done? Are we looking at the restoration of the red line, no touch icing, the removal of the trapezoid, and wholesale equipment reforms? Which of these things (or something else) do you think we’ll see implemented out of the next CBA?

AP: I think there’s an argument to be made for slowing the game down a little, and I’m all for that, so long as obstruction standards (that continue to slide) get back to where they were in 2005-06. But overall, there has to be more emphasis placed on player safety: visors, increased sit-out times for concussion victims, perhaps independent team doctors. There are lots of choices and options that I explore in more depth in my book. But until that is made more of a priority than money (which will be by far the biggest priority in the next labor deal), we’ll see NHL team owners continue their long pattern of putting profit before the talent on the ice.

Matt Martin NHL’s leading Hitman

VP: In the opening few chapters of your book, you really slammed my team, the New York Islanders for their role in the fracas of February 11, 2011. What would you say to my assessment that (NHL hits leader) Matt Martin is a hard-nosed but mostly clean player and the same goes for Mike Haley (who is basically a reincarnated Steve Webb). Furthermore, it has been my contention that the league’s failure to get the Pens in line in games and seasons prior was a contributing factor to that brawl (with the Talbot hit on Comeau and the Ponikarasky board on Bailey just two examples at my disposal), would you agree with that notion of the league’s culpability?

AP: I think both Martin and Haley are aggressive players who wouldn’t be NHLers prior to the last round of expansion. That’s not to say they’re horrible people, or that they can’t rise above their station, but let’s not try to paint them as saints, either. But yes, I would say the league could have stepped in at any point early in the developing feud and nipped things in the bud. That they chose not to says it all. They want these kinds of things happening, but their definition of “too far” is nebulous.

VP: I contend that Shanahan’s transparency is the most important thing about his administration. He has a thankless job, but explaining to players and fans the rationale for his decisions is the best thing for the league, as it demystifies supplemental discipline. Do you see this as an important step in getting players to trust the league to “handle things” more?

AP: After the roasting Shanahan has taken in the playoffs, I’d argue that his transparency has only made it clear how terrible the NHL’s supplemental discipline policies really are, and why it doesn’t really matter who is in that role so long as owners don’t commit to a tougher stance on acceptable player behavior. After the Shea Weber non-suspension, players went batty for a while, precisely because it showed the league would do nothing to stop egregious actions. That’s why, on one level, I don’t blame these guys for the vigilante justice culture. Clearly, the NHL doesn’t care about justice, which is why the decisions are as baffling under Shanahan as they were under Colin Campbell.

Kerry Fraser “The Hair!”

VP: I felt that ‘holy shit’ metric described by Kerry Fraser is the easiest example to relate to I’ve ever seen described by an official. With the increased scrutiny, do you feel officials are doing a good job enforcing rule 48? Do players (e.g., Travis Hamonic for a phantom elbow on Letang) who get ejected on a dive just have to suck it up and accept the league is going to call anything borderline, or should they still finish their checks?

AP: No, as I said, I think the overall officiating standards have slipped yet again. It’s undeniable if you’re talking playoff hockey, and the regular-season penalty numbers strongly suggest the same. But I don’t fault the officials, either. They take their direction from Terry Gregson, who takes his from Gary Bettman, who takes his from the owners. It all starts at the top.

VP: It is my contention the Bruins and Flyers don’t hoist their Broad Street and Big Bad Cups without their toughness. And that the Isles don’t roll past them without Clark Gillies. Is it accurate that team toughness and having a guy that can mix it up (Not necessarily an enforcer per se) is still an essential component for a Cup run?

AP: Depends what you mean by a guy who can mix it up. Who would that be on the Red Wings’ last Cup-winning team? I think it all depends on what the league allows to happen on the ice. If they reward the Bruins and other aggressive teams for their play, of course it makes sense. But if the game is more about skill and the rulebook is interpreted that way, maybe other teams win out.

VP: If you were in charge for a day, how many “reckless players” would you exile from the game? Would there be a set “this many transgressions and you are gone” criteria?

AP: The changes I’d want wouldn’t work for just a day. I’d put all players on notice that dirty play won’t be tolerated, intent or no intent, and that the head was off-limits. From there, I’d establish clear penalties for headshots and discretionary but severe penalties for other wanton acts. Unfortunately, that would mean examples would have to be set and new precedents created, but that’s the only way players will know change is here and here to stay.

In terms of numbers, I don’t have anything specific, but I do think eight games, or roughly 10 percent of the regular season, is a good starting point for first-time offenders (not fighters). But I would say repeat fighters would have a sliding scale of suspensions that increases drastically after, say, the fifth fight. More than nine or 10 fights means you won’t be playing for the rest of the season.

VP: I’m the Isles writer here, so I’ll ask this in closing: The history of the market, the potential of this young core, a passionate (they are still there, trust me) fan base – is Long Island a hockey market worth saving?How much of a black-eye for the NHL would it be if the franchise responsible for one of the great dynasties in sports history ceased to be?

AP: I do recognize there’s a vocal and proud group of Isles fans and that it would serve the league well to maintain as large a presence in the greater NYC market, so I do hope the franchise stays. My biggest problem with the team has been the dubious decisions made by its ownership and management, as well as the arena that hinders its ability to bring in free agents. What will have to come first for this team to get a new building – the threat of relocation, or winning? Unfortunately, Charles Wang and Garth Snow haven’t made winning part of the equation.

That was fun.Thank you so much for your time, Adam! Follow him on twitter @Proteautype.

That announcement by NHL head disciplinarian Brendan Shanahan set off a firestorm of angry commentary from Canucks and Blackhawks fans criticizing the length of the suspension, whether Keith’s hit was premeditated, and whether a hit by Daniel that targeted Keith’s head earlier in the game also warrants suspension.

In the NHL video explaining the decision, Shanahan concludes:

“Regardless of Keith’s assertion that the intent on this play was to impede Sedin’s progress as opposed to a retaliation for an earlier hit, Keith’s hit was still dangerous, reckless, and caused injury.”

The day after the Blackhawks game, Daniel was flown back to Vancouver for medical evaluation and missed the game that night with the Dallas Stars which fueled speculation that the injury was a concussion. TSN is now reporting that the Canucks have confirmed that Daniel’s injury is, in fact, a concussion. No word yet on the severity of his injury or potential recovery time.

Losing an elite player for an indeterminate amount of time is quite a blow for a team that has been struggling for the past month to earn the last few points needed to clinch a spot in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. But it’s possible that this setback could motivate the Canucks to play smarter and with more passion, as they demonstrated in Dallas the day after Daniel’s injury.

Was the suspension fair? Keith has no prior disciplinary action against him, and while I don’t believe his assertion that it wasn’t retaliation — especially after you see the hit he got from Sedin earlier — I think the 5-game suspension is what most reasonable fans on both sides of the debate have begrudgingly agreed is fair. Some Canucks fans, of course, feel it should have been a little longer, while some Blackhawks fans feel it should have been shorter and included a suspension for Sedin.

And what about the hit Sedin gave to Keith? When you watch the video slow-motion replay, it does appear that Sedin’s shoulder comes into contact with Keith’s head.

It’s clearly a hit targeting a player’s head which was dangerous and reckless, but didn’t cause injury. For that reason, I think Sedin should have also been given some form of punishment, perhaps in the form of a $25,000 fine. I don’t see the point of suspending a player that is already out due to an injury.

Whenever there’s a suspension, fans start comparing it with the length of past suspensions for similar infractions, and the pattern that starts to emerge is that there is no pattern. The NHL’s crackdown on hits to the head has become lax since the early pre-season days when Brendan Shanahan stunned everyone with stiff, 10-game suspensions for anything that came near a player’s head.

While I cheered him on, others jeered at what they felt was overzealous officiating by eager-beaver Shanahan, who was scaring those poor, easily-frightened hockey players into not hitting at all which was also killing the game of hockey. Dramatic much, hockey fans? One of the more outspoken critics of Shanahan’s “overreach” was Don Cherry who, in a segment on CBC Coach’s Corner last year, waxed rhapsodic about hard hits over a video montage of player after player being concussed, exclaiming, “ENJOY THIS FOLKS, CAUSE YOU’RE NEVER EVER GOIN’ TO SEE IT AGAIN!”

But unfortunately, we are seeing it again. And ever since, the suspensions have become shorter and more scarce while hits that intentionally target a player’s head seem to be on the rise. So, you won, Don Cherry! But the fans have lost because now there is no clear standard or consistency to the penalties being handed down by Shanahan and the NHL. Some hits to a player’s head are ignored, while others lead to multi-game suspensions. But never 10 games. Not anymore.

I don’t know about you, but, I’d prefer to see elite hockey players like Sid Crosby, Jonathan Toews and Daniel Sedin playing hockey, not out nursing head injuries with garcinia cambogia extract that make them miss half the season. The NHL needs to go back to handing out longer suspensions and increased fines to players who intentionally target another player’s head. It’s the only way to discourage dirty hits that have the potential to cause lasting damage and end a dazzling hockey career.

Agree? Disagree? Let me know what you think in the comments below.

It’s another sunny day in La Mesa, California. And another sunny day for hockey pioneer, Willie O’Ree. Just don’t call him that.

“The temperature is probably going to reach around 90, 92 degrees,” he says, looking out his office window. O’Ree is getting ready for a trip to Washington DC: just another in a long journey for the spry 75 year old. But it’s all for a good cause.

“Once you get the boys and girls on the ice, that’s 90 percent of the job,” he says.  “What I tell them is ‘if you don’t like it, you can walk away.’  I have not had one boy or girl come up to me and say they’re not coming back.  There’s just something about it.”

O’Ree and Kevin Weekes of NHL Network and Hockey Night in Canada fame, will join Washington’s own Neal Henderson of the Fort Dupont Ice Hockey Club, in attending the Congressional Black Caucus’ 41st annual meeting. This will mark the first time ever that the hockey community has had a formal presence at this annual affair. 

Joining them will be Ken Martin, VP of the Community Affairs for the NHL, who we met two weeks ago at the Warriors game. The CBC meeting is yet another facet to the League’s Hockey is for Everyone program. “We are proud to present these hockey legends and look forward to participating and exploring additional opportunities for more boys and girls of all backgrounds to play our great sport,” he said.

Willie O’Ree sees the future of hockey (which is ironic, which we’ll get to in a moment.)  And for him, the future looks like the kids in Fredericton, and Detroit, and El Paso…and just about everywhere else he’s traveled.  Hockey’s future, he says, looks a whole lot like 1958.  But much, much more so.  At least, so says the man who many call a ‘hero‘.

“A lot of people call me a hero, call me a pioneer,” says the New Brunswick native.  “But the way I look at it, I was just a kid from Canada, wanting to play a sport where there were very few blacks playing at that time, and just be the best player I could be.”

At first, O’Ree has that ‘professionally modest’ tone that nearly every high-dollar player has adopted these days – usually on advice of agents. Yet it doesn’t take long to figure out that nobody coaches Willie O’Ree.  He actually is what he’s said to be.  And it’s disarming.

‘I’m speaking with Willie O’Ree?  Seriously?’, you ask yourself.  ‘THE man who broke the color barrier in the NHL?  The ‘Jackie Robinson’ of the Rink?’

“So many people have asked me about that before,” says O’Ree, graciously…without exaggeration. Ever since Jan. 18, 1958, when he was called up by the Bruins as a right winger – and became the first-ever black man to lace up for an NHL game – O’Ree has became a part of sports history.

Fine and well..but notice the words. ”Black man”, “NHL.” Among his other claims, O’Ree is very often mis-cited as being the “first African-American” to play professional hockey. Wrong, and wrong. O’Ree is to this day a proud Canadian national – just like most of the 29 current NHL players who cite African heritage. ”African-Canadian?” Mmmm…let’s go with the Canadian press and say ‘black.’

Team photo, "Colored Hockey Championships of the Maritimes", date unknown.

As for others before him, they were ably documented in Darril and George Fosty’s book “Black Ice” – a blazing document of the early Colored Hockey League of the early last century, and the innovations that gave us modern hockey.

Still, there’s no doubting: Willie O’Ree was the first.  And to this day, he’s humble about his place in the pantheon.

“You just have to set goals for yourself, and work toward your goals.  If you think you can, you can; if you think you can’t, you’re right. With our program, if you want to play, what we say is we won’t turn any boy or girl away.”

Kind words from a man who’s learned to be so. 

Of the major professional sports leagues in North America, hockey – at least as measured by players – still remains the whitest.  Currently just 29 NHL players can cite Africa as part of their heritage. O’Ree retired from the NHL in 1961, yet it took an unbelievable 16 more years before any other player could boast a similar claim. That player? Yeah, a Capital – Mike Marson, drafted by the upstart team in 1974.

“I think we had just under 30 players in the National Hockey League that were visible minorities this year.  As you know, that’s certainly a high number, and it’s only going to get higher, thanks in part to people like Willie O’Ree.”

Kevin Weekes comes face to face with Willie O'Ree (Al Bello, Getty Images)

That’s not just an idle comment, but one from someone who knows the game from several angles: Kevin Weekes. Memorable between the pipes for a number of teams in the 90s – the Panthers, Canucks, Islanders Bolts, Canes, Rangers (boo!), and ultimately the Devils – Weekes these days is perhaps just as recognizable as the first black man to host national TV coverage of the NHL, on the CBC and NHLN – not to mention his official role as “Ambassador of Hockey.” It’s a title that suits him.

“It’s all about evolution,” notes Weekes from his Toronto office. “And like everything else, it evolves at it’s own pace.”

Evolution lesson #1: Kevin Weekes is a first-generation ‘American’ – using the term loosely. Born of parents from Barbados, Weekes learned the game as an immigrant to the colder climes of Canada – exactly as O’Ree, did. But for Weekes, it was all new, and strange…and enticing:

“Many of us were first generation North Americans. You don’t play hockey in Trinidad or Barbados.” But exactly for that reason the question rises: can hockey grow? Really grow, to warm-side towns and country-sides where pickup soccer and baseball have reigned?

“If the White House isn’t a great indicator of time and evolution, I don’t know what would be,” says Weekes, who fondly recalls a chat with First Lady Michele Obama.

“Hockey isn’t like playing high school football or basketball.  Hockey is unique – you’ve got tournaments, you’re playing all over the place, and it definitely requires a lot of commitment from the family unit.”

Willie O'Ree, Vincent Lecavalier and Jarome Iginla

For Weekes – and it seems for so many others – hockey is about unity. Unity of family, of muscle and drive, and of community. ”Why should you be limited to certain career choices?,” asks the first-generation Canadian. “Why should your background, or your parents background determine who you should become? I think that’s kind of belittling.”

To be clear: there’s a great display of talent in the NHL of players of African lineage.  Among the hottest: Jarome Iginla, Kyle Okposo, Shawn Belle, giant Paul “BizNasty” Bissonnette, Evander Kane, Dustin Byfuglien and our new Cap winger, Joel Ward. And as Weekes notes – that’s just the surface.

“The more comfortable people are with something, the more often they see it, the more they’re going to be comfortable with it. My parents had only been in Canada for 5 years.  I said I wanted to be like Ian, my older cousin, and said ‘I want to play hockey.’  My parents had no idea what the process was…they had no clue, but they committed to it.”

It’s a tough role to be a role model, let alone a ‘hero’. Just ‘google’ Kevin Weekes – let alone Willie O’Ree – and see what comes up. “It gives me goosebumps, just thinking about it,” says Weekes. He, O’Ree, and dozens of other players have had to lumber under that mantle for years now. Too many years. Which is why both Weekes and O’Ree look sunnily to their trip to DC. In part, to do their bit for the NHL. And in part, to come pay tribute to someone who’s actually been doing what they talk about for years – without all the media attention.

“Neil Henderson? He’s my hero!,” says O’Ree, of the man behind the Fort Dupont Ice Hockey Club. Weekes chimes in: the Cannons embody what he sees as the future of hockey: diverse, young, and enthusiastic. ”He sees the future,” he adds

Which brings us back to Will O’Ree, and vision. Unknown at the time he was drafted, O’Ree only had vision in one eye – his right retina nearly destroyed by an errant puck. A left-winger, with no right eye vision?  Perhaps as unlikely as a black player in 1958.

“I like to say that Willie O’Ree lost his vision, but was always a visionary,” says Weekes. It’s a line O’Ree has heard before, and embraces.

“I just told myself: ‘Willie, you can do anything you set your mind to do, if you feel strongly within your heart.’  And this is what I tell this young boys and girls.  I have visions of boys and girls not just playing hockey, but getting into management positions.  There’s a lot of opportunity.”

Our time done, Willie O’Ree has other matters to attend to ahead of his trip to DC. It’s not easy being a hero. Perhaps that’s why he so looks forward to the day when a player of African, or Caribbean, or another minority is noted for their play – not for their ancestry. For O’Ree, hockey’s future is a bright, sunny place.

“Enjoy the day,” he says.