If it is true, and I am a bit skeptical, then the only way that the admin can answer for this is to have them truly embarrassed. The program should be shut down for at least a year, and the same should happen to other programs with similar tolerance for abusive behavior.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Harvard 2022-23: What's Up?
- Thread starter thirdtime's . . .
- Start date
If it is true, and I am a bit skeptical, then the only way that the admin can answer for this is to have them truly embarrassed. The program should be shut down for at least a year, and the same should happen to other programs with similar tolerance for abusive behavior.
Not sure what you mean by "protected classes". It's standard operating procedure at Harvard to go into denial mode until they can't. If more information continues to come out about the abuse, then they will have no choice but to take action. I doubt they would cancel the season at this point.
thirdtime's . . .
Active member
Yes, great find, the similarities are not just incredible, they’re positively uncanny! Make room for the additional indictments!
If you want to feast on this sorry situation so be it, but show a little discipline when it comes to accuracy. Things are nasty enough as is, so we don't need lit torches and brandished pitchforks. The light of day, when it does come, promises to be stark enough.
Last edited:
Trillium's recent posts are on point! I'm adding my 2 cents as somewhat of an insider:
Stone's pets continue to defend her legacy for two main reasons:
Stone has an additional protective factor which Trillium touched on: her incredible success at garnering donations. An under-recognized aspect of Stone's favouritism is that some of it is linked to financial contributions of wealthy parents. Some kids likely would not have been recruited at all if it wasn't for their parents' donations. Presently, some of Stone's most vocal supporters are major donors, and it isn't lost on me that they have children who already have or soon will be on Stone's recruiting list if she isn't removed from her position. Hohler's article quotes one such supporter, Holly Johnson, as saying she hopes her child will play for Stone one day. One way to read that is "Stone is so great I would entrust her with my child". Another way to read that is "Stone is my child's ticket to Harvard and I'll do anything to keep her there". Recently, this same alumnus went to the trouble of writing a letter to the Globe, leaning hard into the meritocracy myth:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/02...ws-harvard-hockey-coach-whos-come-under-fire/
Prowler Breath!!! The first 16 will embolden more. Aside from the culture of bullying, Stone's lack of concern for players' mental and physical wellbeing, and her losing approach to team building, there are a number of serious incidents which haven't surfaced yet. Some of these are being actively investigated by the university and by reporters. Stone bears ultimate responsibility for the culture because she is aware of everything (her pets make sure of it), but the players also bear responsibility as the ones who invent and propagate the details of their offensive and outdated hazing practices and inside jokes. I expect the program defenders will come to regret it.
Stone's pets continue to defend her legacy for two main reasons:
- Most victimized players refuse to talk about their experience to anyone who isn't in their circle of trust, including their favoured teammates, so in many cases the pets genuinely don't know about the negative experiences. Many players went through their college career knowing that some favoured player(s) had bad-mouthed them to Stone, resulting in irreparable damage to their Harvard experience and their hockey career, but they could never know exactly who said what, leading to paranoia towards their teammates which remains to this day. This is a major hurdle for reporters who continue to investigate the program.
- As Trillium touched on, Stone tended to favour players with narcissistic traits, and those players will never consider that perhaps they didn't deserve Stone's favouritism any more her victims deserved to be punished. The myth of meritocracy is seductive when you are one of the haves. On top of their hockey experience, keep in mind that these recruited athletes just waltzed into the most prestigious academic institution in the world despite mediocre or sub-par academic credentials, where they joined a network of over-privileged young adults who understand that the key to protecting their privilege is to be loyal to the institution and protect the illusion that they've earned it. This is a recipe for having your head WAY up your own ass.
Stone has an additional protective factor which Trillium touched on: her incredible success at garnering donations. An under-recognized aspect of Stone's favouritism is that some of it is linked to financial contributions of wealthy parents. Some kids likely would not have been recruited at all if it wasn't for their parents' donations. Presently, some of Stone's most vocal supporters are major donors, and it isn't lost on me that they have children who already have or soon will be on Stone's recruiting list if she isn't removed from her position. Hohler's article quotes one such supporter, Holly Johnson, as saying she hopes her child will play for Stone one day. One way to read that is "Stone is so great I would entrust her with my child". Another way to read that is "Stone is my child's ticket to Harvard and I'll do anything to keep her there". Recently, this same alumnus went to the trouble of writing a letter to the Globe, leaning hard into the meritocracy myth:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/02...ws-harvard-hockey-coach-whos-come-under-fire/
Prowler Breath!!! The first 16 will embolden more. Aside from the culture of bullying, Stone's lack of concern for players' mental and physical wellbeing, and her losing approach to team building, there are a number of serious incidents which haven't surfaced yet. Some of these are being actively investigated by the university and by reporters. Stone bears ultimate responsibility for the culture because she is aware of everything (her pets make sure of it), but the players also bear responsibility as the ones who invent and propagate the details of their offensive and outdated hazing practices and inside jokes. I expect the program defenders will come to regret it.
I'm not an insider to the program although I've met a few parents and players over the years. One such player is a former Olympian, and I had an opportunity to have a drawn-out conversation with her about her experience. She confirmed what Nobody98 related in his/her post; that there are favorites or 'pets' in the program and Coach Stone makes no secret as to who they are to the rest of the team. Curiously, this Olympian from what I could tell by her sharing this information was not considered a favorite of Coach Stone. She was pointed in her complaints about the favoritism, and I got the sense it didn't sit well inside the locker room with the "non favorites."
Mercifully the season will conclude either this weekend or if they are the eighth seed, the following weekend. I don't know what else will be revealed if anything, but it would seem that Harvard will have an uphill climb to continue to look the other way. The toothpaste is out of the tube so to speak.
I wonder if anyone has any insight into why we have not heard from AJ Mleczko, Jennifer Botterill, Angela Ruggiero, Nicole Corriero, or Sarah Vaillencourt?
Mercifully the season will conclude either this weekend or if they are the eighth seed, the following weekend. I don't know what else will be revealed if anything, but it would seem that Harvard will have an uphill climb to continue to look the other way. The toothpaste is out of the tube so to speak.
I wonder if anyone has any insight into why we have not heard from AJ Mleczko, Jennifer Botterill, Angela Ruggiero, Nicole Corriero, or Sarah Vaillencourt?
Why would anyone want to wade into the swamp that is being exposed at Harvard? Yes, it is a good question, but what is the upside to those people getting involved right now?
No question you're right; no one should want to get near this dumpster fire. Yet Julie Chu who was a prominent member of the program went on the record and I'm wondering if the players I mentioned (I should have included Jillian Dempsey who lives in the area and plays for the Boston Pride) were contacted, asked not to be quoted or even speak off the record. That's perhaps how I should have phrased it.
thirdtime's . . .
Active member
Yes, I think we have to leave the former stars alone. They are in an untenable position, either having to reimagine their mentoring as making them unwittingly complicit, or now, improbably, saying “Yeah. It didn’t seem right at the time.” No way out. The common denominator is the vulnerability of the young athlete, and this is the sadness of the current situation.
By process of elimination, it’s easy to guess the non-favoured Olympian you referred to…
Chu is well meaning but naive.
Vaillencourt supports Stone and was a bully, but her identity was never wrapped up with Harvard the way it is for many players and I wouldn’t expect more than a “thumbs up” from Canada from her.
Corriero is an active ringleader for defending Stone, but she is also a lawyer and I expect her to approach this cautiously and strategically.
The others are presumed supporters but keeping a low profile, I’d say wisely.
Meh. The old-timers aren’t young athletes any more. Their voices carry weight, as does their silence.
The “way out” would be openness and empathy for those who had a different experience. It can be simultaneously true that they had positive experiences while many alumni did not.
The past is the past, but refusing to seriously consider and make space for the experiences of others is what makes them complicit today.
Last edited:
Still Eeyore
Well-known member
The New Mexico State case has additional elements that are not present at Harvard, or pretty much anywhere else. One of the NMSU basketball players shot and killed a University of New Mexico student in December, after a game at UNM. The police ruled it a case of self-defense, but coaches and other players are in legal jeopardy for trying to conceal evidence, including the gun used, from the police.
Thanks for the insights. I don't think there is a 'win-win' under any scenario that can materialize from this mess. I'm hoping that the women who suffered the abuse can find some peace and move on with their lives realizing there are bad apples everywhere and it's best not to ingest their poison.
I caught some of yesterday's game. I don't want to say that the team has quit entirely but mentally there are players who have clearly checked out. And this is the first time since the '97-'98 season that Brown has swept a season series from Harvard. Perhaps the final nail in the coffin.
FiveHoleFrenzy
Well-known member
Decided to take a look at the Yale and Harvard stream, mostly to get a look at Yale. Cheese and Rice, Harvard is truly awful. Literally standing around watching Yale control the puck in Harvard's zone. This game should be on running time.
reggiedunlap9
Member
I'm sorry but losing 10-1 to your arch rival Yale tells me all I need to know. This team has completely checked out on its coach. Stone need to go and Stone needs to go now. I don't care if the playoffs start next weekend. Give Mirasola a chance to show Harvard what she can do as the head coach. It cant be worse than 10-1 . This is really embarrassing
There's not much you can say after yesterday's debacle. Yale ran a power play for the entire game. Pellicci was hung out to dry by her teammates and as reggiedunlop noted, they have quit on Stone. Absolutely disgraceful. I know this will never happen but for the good of the program, they should forfeit next weekend. There is no need to add to the embarrassment. The Yale players were laughing both on the bench and on the ice. If Harvard chooses to show up next weekend, it will be nothing more than a JV scrimmage for Yale. If that. I'm not sure how any Stone supporter can continue to have her back after watching what unfolded yesterday.
"Back in the Day" this would have been considered poor sportsmanship.
thirdtime's . . .
Active member
A ramped up #2 Yale team steamrolled a demoralized #26 Harvard team. Pellicci was hung out to dry by her coach.
Down 6-1 at the end of two, instead of pulling a shell-shocked goalie, who was essentially defenseless, Stone chose to send her back out to start the third, where the onslaught continued and she surrendered two more goals. Now she’s pulled, as if she was simply having a bad game, and replaced by Boynton, making her second appearance of the season, as if she could now stop the bleeding. Start the third with Boynton (!), saying “Kid, this one’s lost, that's what you’re here for, we’ve got to give Pellicci a break, she’ll be back for more next weekend, and so will you, lemme see what you can do, I certainly don’t expect anything to turn around but the shelling will condition you for down the road, good luck.”
Pellicci is the player from whom Stone has asked the most all season and is the player who has given her team the most all season. I’ve seen the occasional weird move with the coach and her goalies over the years, but this struck me as the height of insensitivity. Unfortunately, a very telling move at the end of this season.
reggiedunlap9
Member
and does anyone even mention the fact that Lindsay Reed, maybe the top goaltender in the US decided NOT TO PLAY this year at Harvard(her Senior year !) because of Stones mental abuse ? This kid was on the US U18 team a few years back and Stone drove her out of the game because she was starting a business during Covid. It is simply unacceptable.
No coach in their right mind, not even Stone, would say what you said here. This is the ultimate slap in the face to Boynton and while I presume you were kidding with this quote, it's unseemly. I too was surprised when Pellicci came out to start the third period. It was a bad move all around. Still, I'm not letting the players off the hook here. Pellicci is their teammate and deserved to have them at least try to put up some resistance on her behalf.
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
I agree. It's been my experience that the bonds between the players on a team are much stronger than those formed between others in sports (e.g. player/coach), similar to how the bonds within a nucleus are stronger than those between a nucleus and electrons. It seems strange to me that any coach would attempt to intentionally drive a wedge between the players, as Stone has reportedly done. The most powerful driving force in team sports is to do it for the person next to you. Why would a coach intentionally compromise that.