Schadenfreude - taking pleasure in another's shame or misery - is clearly a terrible and vicious way to behave. The noblest among us avoid it at all times. Most of us are not that noble. I try to be, but I confess, dear reader, that this is one of my vices.

Personally, my joy at the Flyers' loss to the Devils tonight could only have been sweeter if a hideous error by two Flyers had resulted in what was, essentially, an own goal by the Flyers' goalie. </sarcasm>

The basic function of officials in NHL games is to replace the dice, and randomize what happens in games. Offsides? Oops! Rolled a 1! Botch! Illegal goal for Briere. Couturier slashes Malkin six times on the same play? Oops! Rolled a 1! Botch! Not a penalty. Orpik hits Briere while both of them are in the same place as the puck? Oops! Another 1! Botch! Penalty to Orpik for Not Actually Committing Interference. Schenn scores on the powerplay.

The best way to win in the playoffs is to ignore the rules of the game, since the officials do.

I'm reading a scholarly article on conflicts of interest NFL team doctors have when they treat players. The team pays them, and the team's interest is in having athletes on the field who will help the team win. The doctors have a professional responsibility to the health of their patients. The specific injury of concussions exacerbates this conflict of interest because of the medical uncertainty involved. It's pretty detailed about the concussion diagnosis, treatment, and clearing-for-contact issues. I hope my students get a lot out of it.

Along the way, the author, Daniel Goldberg, discusses the conflict of interest of Dr. Mark Lovell, who is at UPMC, and one of the proprietors behind the ImPACT test that is being touted as a diagnostic tool for recovery from concussion -- touted quite often by Lovell himself, by the way. Lovell was (is?) also a consultant to the Steelers. The NFL, who paid for his research that developed the ImPACT test, has adopted that test for its athletes.

And the NHL seems to be following suit. One practical problem here is that the medical knowledge of concussions, though much better than even just a decade ago, is still rather murky. The ImPACT test is based on assumptions about recovery from concussions that could be seriously flawed.

Even "mild" concussions can have long-term consequences. A small medical study cited in the article concluded that an athlete suffering 3 "mild" concussions is five times more likely to have cognitive impairment and three times more likely to have memory loss. Concussion symptoms can appear years after the injury.

I kept thinking of Kris Letang while reading this, because of the November 27 game against Montréal. Letang left after his injury, took his now-mandatory fifteen minutes in the chill room, was probably asked what day it was and where he was playing that night, and went out to score the OT winner... and miss the next quarter of the season.

The problem: even "mild" concussions take around 36 hours to fully blossom, if you'll excuse the expression. Another study of high school football players cited in the article demonstrated this, and the futility of the fifteen minute wait period. Fifteen minutes is in no way diagnostic.

So whose interests are served by the fifteen minute mandatory rest period? Not the player's!

(I teach philosophy for a living, mainly a course called Professional Ethics, which is why this came up. The citation for the article is: Goldberg, Daniel S. "Concussions, Professional Sports, and Conflicts of Interest: Why the National Football League's Current Policies are Bad for Its (Players') Health)," HEC Forum, 20:4, 2008, pp. 337-355.)

My first year of grad school at Duquesne was the 1990-91 NHL season. Yep, I came to Pittsburgh to a Stanley Cup champ. Throughout the 1990s I watched Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, and Ron Francis be brilliant night after night. They were incredible to watch back then, as some of you might remember. Down 3-0, the Pens could turn on the offense and come back to win a game. Up 3-0, their defense could suddenly implode and they'd lose a game. You never knew what to expect, and their talent and skill were amazing.

I moved to California in 1998, and was thrilled to watch Mario return in 2000. And I watched the Penguins fall apart after that. I watched every game I could during the brutal early 2000's, when the Pens were hoping for offense from such stars as Ramzi Abid and Alexey Morozov.

So, I've been through the tough times with my adopted hometown team. Unfortunately, it's looking more like the early 2000's these days. I've been trying to remember why I kept watching the Penguins in those awful years - 2002, 2003, 2004. What I think kept me watching was that they still had spirit, still kept moving and working. And they were still my Pittsburgh Penguins, still my hometown team, even out here in Cali.

I think, if you're a Penguins fan because you're from the 'burgh, or because of Sid or Mario, that you need to keep the faith no matter what happens this season, or any season. If you lived through Dick Tarnstrom being the team's high scorer for the season, you know what I mean.

You are watching brilliant athletes at the peak of their profession, fighting to win games for your home team (however that relates to you). That's a privilege and a joy. Every Craig Adams shot block, every Matt Cooke sneer, every Brooks Orpik hit, every random Pascal Dupuis goal, even every Evgeni Malkin offsides play, is something to savor, win or lose.

Go Pens.

On the Yahoo! Sports NHL page tonight was an image of the late Wade Belak, headlined, "Heartbreaking Loss." The caption to the image linked to a story labeled "Beloved by fans, players."

On the same page tonight was a story about Marc Savard, headlined "Game Over," with a link noting that he's "unikely to play" this season, or indeed ever again.

I don't mean what I'm about to say as an indictment against Belak, or any of the other unfortunate recently departed NHL "tough guys." I also don't mean it to defend their actions as players, or the choices they made.

I mean to say only this. Hockey needs to reconsider its relationship to violence.

There is natural violence in hockey. Players skate at high speeds and, in the course of game play, run into and hit one another in pursuit of the objectives of the game: scoring goals, and preventing goals. 

But there is a non-natural violence that hockey all too often encourages. This is the violence unrelated to the objectives of the sport, and that are too often lauded by people related to the game, from coaches, to players, to fans, to commentators. (In my personal opinion, all fighting, and all head-shots, fall into this category.)

It is imperative to hockey's future, and to the future health of players, to reconsider what kinds of violence are natural and even essential to the sport, and what kinds are not. And to rule absolutely out of the game those that are not. 

I'm sorry to say that most of what I remember about Wade Belak involves the latter. I'm even sorrier to say that the most important thing I remember about Marc Savard is as well.