From: (Gerry Gryschuk)
Subject: Re: Manon
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 08:00:30 GMT

From article <1992Oct5.052924.26031@adobe.com>, by snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols):
> In article <1992Oct3.110759.12913@access.usask.ca> (Gerry Gryschuk) writes:
>>> She earned her invitation to camp just as much as anybody else.  There is
>>> no objective measure of who "deserves" a place in camp.  
>>> 
>>
>>There's an objective measure of who deserves to make it to the NHL?
>>Does Link Gaetz deserve to be there? 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is.
> 
> There are a number of people invited to any camp that have no realistic
> shot at actually making the NHL.  Coming into camp, Rheaume was presumed to
> be one of them.  She demonstrated enough in camp that the organization
> wanted to retain her and see if she would develop further.
> 

Sorry if my question wasn't clear. I thought I was questioning Anna on her
subjective opinion of when a publicity stunt is legitimate and when it isn't.
Given this your statement about objectivity didn't seem relevant to me,
admittedly I used an obtuse method of attempting to point this out. Once again
sorry about that.

Attempting to clear this up I've included below the text of Anna's message
which I originally responded to and my question.

Start of included Text ...

From article <YeloBC_00UhW44CoZH@andrew.cmu.edu>, by Anna Matyas <am2x+@andrew.cmu.edu>:
> 
> Christopher Raczka writes:
> 
>>   Well Carrie, I think it is total explotation and that is not cool
>> 
>>   Esposito is looking for any way/means possible to try and recoup
>>   expenses incurred for bringing an NHL team to Tampa
>> 
>>   This is not the first time this has happened in sports, there
>>   was a woman who tried out for an NBA team, and a woman who played
>>   in the old ABA (for about 2 seconds in one game)
>> 
>>   I hope I'am wrong, and I hope Ms Rheaume gets an apportunity
>>   to play in the NHL, but it doesn't look that way yet
>> 
> *IF* this is exploitation but it leads to breaking new ground in the NHL,
> is it wrong?  "Firsts" are often exploited -- it's the sad, ugly truth
> of the way the world goes.
> 
> Why do you hope Rheume gets to play in the NHL?  Solely because she's a
> woman?  I don't think that's right.  She should have to earn her spot just
> like anyone else.  
> 
> Mom.

Interesting. Shouldn't she have earned her invitation to camp then?

End of included Text ...


Note I deleted the part of my comments between Anna's two paragraphs. However
that comment doesn't effect this discussion and leaving Anna's comments
together should make it clearer why I asked my question.

Simply put it seems to me Anna has a subjective viewpoint of when exploitation
is at least acceptable to her and when it isn't. After her second paragraph
I could have made the statement "If Manon was to play in the NHL just because
she is a woman but it leads to breaking new ground is it wrong? She was already
invited to camp for this reason, its the sad, ugly truth of the way the world
works." 

I thought we were discussing the exploitation of a person or event for the
teams gain. In general players who don't deserve to be in camp but are invited
anyway aren't there to be exploited for the teams gain. Manon Rheaume's
situation in this matter is different than all other players who may not have
deserved to be invited to camp, if it wasn't she and Tampa would not have
received the publicity they did. Given this it is difficult for me to see why
someone would not object to her appearing in camp purely as a publicity stunt
but find the same circumstances objectional at the regular season level.
--
Gerald Gryschuk            Saskatoon,Saskatchewan = a place with 9 months
gerry@sask.usask.ca           of hockey and 3 months of poor skating.
Go Habs!!!