Yahoo Sports 
OHL commissioner David Branch criticized for not divulging details in Windsor Spitfires’ punishment
With the Windsor Spitfires able to appeal the heavy sanctions they were hammered with late last week, the focus has shifted to whether Ontario Hockey League commissioner David Branch should have been transparent about what Windsor did that was so bad.
In 2012, it is a little much to expect anyone would be satisfied with the OHL not naming names. Keep in mind those would only be the players who were proven have received compensation, not necessarily every player who did. There might be an argument that if the names did get out, it would all be put on the player and not his less seen adviser or family who were pulling the strings. One does have to consider the welfare of young people is involved, even if these are teenage hockey players who are marketable commodities. Ultimately, Branch hushing up leaves the opening to take the focus off the punished and put it on the punisher.
From Bob Duff:
"To hand out that kind of punishment, you would hope that he must have some pretty rock-solid evidence," suggested one OHL executive, who wisely didn't want to be named.
If Branch doesn't, then all those pro-Spitfires conspiracy theorists who insist Branch is just out to get their favourite team might actually have a point.
This is exactly why he needs to spell everything out in intimate detail.
The OHL isn't a private club. In effect, it's a publicly-traded company. Fans hand over their hard-earned dollars to purchase tickets to games.
It's a partnership and if the partners who support the league have been misled, they deserve to know what those misdeeds were.
... By not coming clean, he's making it about all the players.
Rumours will continue to circulate and players not at all involved in this scandal may inadvertently get caught up in it. (Windsor Star)
Whether it's "about all the players" depends on the ethics that journalists project on to these teenagers. Most of them are dependent their adviser(s) and parents to shepherd them through their path in hockey, where landing with a good organization where they can develop could help them be one of the lucky few who has a NHL career. Even with the prospect of using their education package to get a university degree, there is a "no Plan B" mindset.
Personally, I would not regard any Spitfires player differently if he was identified as one of the players the league contends was paid improperly. Nor would I presume everyone not identified are clean as a bean.
That's just the way major junior hockey works. There's a bit of a code of omertà that people who follow this level of hockey have to abide. The difference between this and the typical NCAA recruiting scandal is that the latter often take place in cities where there is heavy competition among the media, along with national reporters (such as Yahoo!'s Charles Robinson) poking around. It's a little different in a small Canadian city where there might be one beat writer and one radio station.
As Bill Montague phrased it, until last week the impression was "that the league always took a sort of 'see no evil, hear no evil' approach" to directing players to teams such as (but not limited to) Kitchener, London and Windsor and keeping them away from teams which are less successful and/or based in outlying areas.
Branch probably cannot win either way, but part of leading is making the unpopular decision and facing the music for it. But without that disclosure, Branch and the OHL run the risk of looking like they're engaging in selective enforcement.
The disappointing thing about Friday's news is that neither the league or the Spitfires revealed anything about who this involved and what was paid out, if anything. Why not be more transparent?
When the NCAA punishes its players and coaches for recruitment violations, it does not hide behind secrecy. Their system is more transparent. They name players, elaborate on the incident and hold everyone accountable for their actions, not just the teams but the players and parents who tried to circumvent the rules, too.
While I commend the OHL for taking action and trying ensure a level playing field, I think the league owes it to everyone to reveal who did what. If a player and his family was part of the manipulation, they too should be exposed, not protected. A clearer message has to be sent, the kind of message that may also deter families from manipulating the system, too. (Sault Star)
The Windsor Spitfires are entitled to appeal this. It's too early to tell what will be the long-term consequences of Branch's sanction, especially for a league which at the end of the day, wants the best 16- through 19-year-olds from Ontario, Europe and the U.S. to come and play, knowing full well they don't expect to be identured servants. Talk about an impossible balancing act. The OHL sent a message, but there's no way it could anticipate all the ways it would be received.
Neate Sager is a writer for Yahoo! Canada Sports. Contact him at neatesager@yahoo.ca and follow him on Twitter @neatebuzzthenet.
