I have to say that I am appalled, along with many others.
The news made headlines around the world and Canadians became known as poor sports and rioters. That's right, Canadians. Headlines did not target the hooligans or those responsible for the riot, they targeted the city and the country in general. We, as a country, became known for this act of idiocy overnight. Washed away are the memories created by the Olympics and the friendly persona of the Canadians. While the hope is that this 'wash' is temporary, that is beside the point. What happened in Vancouver extended beyond what is even remotely acceptable.
And my question is, at what point was this not 'a game' for all of those involved. That's right, a game. By definition, a game is "structured playing, usually undertaken for enjoyment and sometimes used as an educational tool." The definition continues that "key components of games are goals, rules, challenge and interaction. Games generally involve mental or physical stimulation, and often both. Many games help develop practical skills, serve as a form of exercise, or otherwise perform an educational, stimulational, or psychological role."
In no context does this definition infer that fans or people that live in team's city, upon loss of a game, are to riot in the street for more than three hours causing millions of dollars of damage, put 60 patients through the St. Paul's Hospital during the riot peak and 200 overall, wreck havoc on 29 stores and 15 vehicles, and create 387 incidents that require police attendance resulting in 100 arrests.
And when did fans become involved in the outcome of the game. I mean, I know what it is like to be frustrated while watching a game. But the people who had the right to be upset are the players and their families, the coaching staff and the personnel at the Canucks organization. And not one of these individuals was seen on the streets of Vancouver creating havoc.
Now, I know I am writing this in Rider Nation where all fans seem to be tied to the outcome with statements such as "I should have worn the same shirt" or "I can't believe I drank Coors when last time I drank Bud." I know that people here feel that they are involved in the outcome of the game. But to my knowledge, the Rider fans have never been part of a riot. And for the province, that shows what true fans are.
Because when did the celebration of the game become solely about the outcome. What about the process? Where was the celebration of the fact these hockey players made it through 25 games on the playoff road, winning 15 of them, to give their city a Stanley Cup final?
While this is not the first sports riot to ever take place, it appears the Vancouver riots have a unique characteristic of their own. Other riots have been based on wins. In 1990, the riot in Detroit was sparked after their team won the NBA title leaving seven dead. In 1992, the Chicago Bulls won the NBA championship causing a riot that left 200 people injured. And in 1993, after the Canadians won the Stanley Cup, 168 individuals were injured. But this riot, in addition to the 1994 riot, was the result of a loss. So are Canucks fans just bad losers?
There has been a lot of discussion and pleas from Vancouverites for people to recognize that this wasn't the act of the fans, it was the act of a group of hooligans. The Vancouver mayor stated that this act was "disgraceful, shameful and by no means represents the city of Vancouver." Vice-president of Canucks Sports and Entertainment said that "the actions of these misguided individuals are not reflective of the citizens of Vancouver or of any true fans of the Canucks or the game of hockey." And I would have to agree with them both.
The events following the Stanley Cup final are both unfortunate for the city and the country, but in no circumstance do I believe that this act could have resulted from upset fans. Not the type of 'fans' that I have come to know anyways. A fan would not act in this way. Rather they would celebrate the successes and discuss the prospects of the future, with a "We'll get 'em next year" type of attitude.
