Hockey Journos’ Spartacus Moment Over Provorov Pride Night Decision an Embarrassment

(AP Photo/Matt Slocum

Philadelphia Flyers’ defenseman Ivan Provorv’s quiet decision not to join the rest of his team in donning a rainbow jersey during pregame warmups on Tuesday, the Flyers’ “Pride Night,” has resulted in much gnashing of teeth among the hockey commentariat.

In a postgame interview, Provorov stated that he respects “everybody’s choices” and explained that by not participating, he was only choosing “to stay true to myself and my religion,” before encouraging the reporters around him to ask questions about the sport he plays and they cover professionally.

Greg Wyshynski, a senior writer for ESPN, along with many of his colleagues chose to instead spend the remainder of the week operating under the mistaken impression that the public hungered for their takes.

After the game, Wyshynski observed that “Ivan Provorov is more than happy to play pregame dress-up when it does align with his belief system” (duh), retweeted another commentator who called Provorov’s decision “a shitty distraction from an important night,” and marveled at the Flyers’s decision let Provorov play in the game after not participating in warmups.

Steph Driver, formerly NHL editorial manager for SB Nation, concurred, deeming  it an an “absolute disgrace” that Provorov was allowed to play.

Adam Proteau, a writer for The Hockey News and Full Press Hockey, called Provorov “a shameful human being whose homophobia is only going to get more shameful over the years.”

The Athletic‘s Pierre LeBrun said that contra Provorov’s comments, he did not respect all choices. “Don’t hide behind religion,” sneered LeBrun.

NHL Network’s EJ Hradek made the rest seem downright philosophical by comparison, suggesting that Provorov leave the United States, where he’s lived since he was 13 years old, to return to Russia and “get involved” in the war in Ukraine.

To borrow a line uttered by another figure afflicted with delusions of grandeur: This is their Spartacus moment.

Writing for a living is a great privilege. Writing about sports is an even greater one, but it can breed a certain kind of narcissism. Take The Hockey News‘s Ian Kennedy‘s hysterical reaction to Flyers’ coach John Tortorella‘s eminently reasonable defense of Provorov:

Tortorella said:

You asked me if I was going to bench him? Why would I bench him? Because of a decision he’s making on his beliefs and his religion? It turned out to be a great night for Pride Night. Players were involved. The building was filled. There was awareness and everything. Provy didn’t actively seek out and try to make a stand against it. He just felt he didn’t want to take warmup. I respect him for his decision. I thought the team handled themselves well. I thought our whole organization handled itself well to make sure we didn’t lose sight of that night.

“Did an NHL coach actually just support his player’s homophobia and transphobia in the media?” asked Kennedy, as if the Pope had just shouted a slur into a microphone in St. Peter’s Square. The NHL is Kennedy’s vocation, but for most of us, the opinion of a hockey coach that hockey player is entitled to his own opinion is neither astonishing nor notable.

What the bloviators fail to recognize is that it’s not gay rights on the line in this instance — Provorov is neither advocating for a rollback of those nor in a position to initiate one — but conscience rights. Provorov, like many Americans, has personal objections to certain aspects of the movement represented by the Pride flag. Only a decade and a half ago, Barack Obama ascended to the presidency professing to share those objections. The runner-up to Obama, and his successor as the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, professed the same. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the Senate, voted for the Defense of Marriage Act.

Shouldn’t we, as a society, be able to respect private citizens’ conscience rights the way that progressive activists’ have forgiven these powerful actors?

Of course, the commentators named above could not identify this as the central question of this faux controversy, or place it in any kind of historical context –much less answer it. That’s no crime, but their hysterical, public calls for blood both literal and figurative are more than indictable.

Mercifully, they’ll return to writing about sports in short order, having proven nothing but their own warranted insecurity.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.