CTV News on CTV - Canadian television's online home for news and entertainment

Hello everyone,

For those of you who enjoyed time off for Thanksgiving, I'm betting hockey was a hot topic of conversation around many a turkey table.

If you tuned out over the past few days and are just catching up, during a segment on CBC's "Hockey Night in Canada" last week, analyst Don Cherry called former players "pukes" and "hypocrites" for voicing their opposition to fighting in hockey.

He apologized on Saturday for using the word "pukes," but he stood by his other comments.

The story continued to resonate today -- on television, talk radio, the Twitterverse, of course, and I'm guessing around many office water coolers across the country. And the three players -- Stu Grimson, Chris Nilan and Jim Thomson -- aren't taking Cherry's comments in stride. They hit back, releasing a statement today through a Nashville law firm where Grimson now works as a lawyer. You can read that statements in our story here.

Cherry's comments come of course after what's been a dark summer for hockey, clouded by the deaths of three former "enforcers": Derek Boogard, Rick Rypien and Wade Belak.

Cherry claimed those with an anti-fighting agenda were manipulating these deaths to further their cause. "You people that are against fighting, you should be ashamed of yourselves," Cherry said. "You took advantage of that to make your point on fighting. You should be ashamed of yourself for doing something like that."

Cherry even singled out Grimson, Nilan and Thomson for suggesting players who fight are prone to substance abuse.

Grimson -- a feared forward who was dubbed "The Grim Reaper" during his playing days -- says he was shocked by the sudden attack. He told our website in an interview that he's never said anything Cherry could consider anti-fighting.

"I was completely astounded," Grimson said. "I felt a bit like the victim of a drive-by shooting."

As you can imagine, we've been getting lots of feedback on this. Here's a small sample from Cherry's critics:

"Steven" left this comment on our website:

"Don represents the worst of the past and must leave the stage, as must all those who promote this negligent and criminal violence. Goodbye Don. You are history."

"Jeff King" says this:

• "In my opinion, Don Cherry has been instrumental in the increase of violence in the sport and has gained monetarily from the promotion of fighting for his own benefit. Just look at the "Rock 'em Sock em" series. Look at the Olympic Hockey, well run, well managed and very well played! Without Fighting!"

On our Facebook page, Sheryl Harry says those who want to complain, should do it ultimately to those who make the rules:

• "If they are still upset with Don Cherry, then it really does sound like a soapbox. Don Cherry has like 5 minutes to address all the issues he needs to address, including the games played and the games being played. If Nilan, Grimson & Thomson have issues with the game, they need to bring it up with [Gary] Bettman, Shanny [Brendan Shanahan] & the NHL."

Lisa Marie Micallef suggests this type of comment from Cherry is nothing new, and is the reason why he remains so popular.

• ". . . whether Cherry's views are politically correct or not, people listen to what he has to say and thus elevating him to the status he holds. Don Cherry has ALWAYS been controversial and that is WHY people tune in to him."

On Twitter, Don Cherry has been a trending topic in Canada all day. Peter Blank (@thepeteblank), a proclaimed Habs fan according to his Twitter bio, says "Don Cherry may not always be right, but at least he's not afraid to speak his mind. I will still watch Coach's Corner."

So which side do you come down on this issue? Do you agree with Cherry's opinion? And if you don't, what about his right to air his opinion?

See you tonight,

Lisa