Oilers participating in Movember

by James Mirtle on Nov 5, 2009 8:28 PM CST Comment 13 comments

Chorney-04_cover_medium

Taylor Chorney, for those who don't know. Here's the press release (with photo gallery):

Eight of the Edmonton Oilers are joining the fight against prostate cancer this month by participating in Movember. Throughout November, participating players will grow moustaches in support of prostate cancer research. The Edmonton Oilers Community Foundation will be accepting donations on behalf of the Movember Foundation on edmontonoilers.com.

"We’re very proud to see a number of our players participate in Movember." said Natalie Minckler, EOCF’s Executive Director. "Not only have they shown leadership by joining this important cause but their participation is a product of their own initiative."

Oilers forward Sam Gagner initiated the idea and enrolled his teammates Gilbert Brule, Taylor Chorney, J-F Jacques, Patrick O’Sullivan, Ryan Stone, Theo Peckham and Zack Stortini.

George Parros, in other words, will soon have some competition.

0 recs | Comment 13 comments | Add comment | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Wow! Members of a professional sport preaching awareness of a cancer that is not a disease of the breasts. That’s unheard of, and in fact thought the only cancer people seemed to care about was of the mammary kind.

Kudos to the six for doing so.

by Chad_ on Nov 5, 2009 10:19 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Thank you. Look, my childhood best friend’s mom went through breast cancer. I know how much fun it is. I still get sick and tired of that being pretty much the only cancer anyone talks about, especially given that it’s one of the more survivable cancers out there. Stomach cancer, which my dad died of three and a half years ago? Not so much.

That’s why I don’t go in for all the pink stuff (aside from the fact that less money goes to breast cancer things than the actual markup) and instead go directly to the front lines with my money. I’ve given hundreds of dollars to the Tom Baker Cancer Centre here in Calgary since 2006, and plan to continue giving $50 or $100 three or four times a year, because they don’t discriminate by cancer. It’s all the same to them, whether it’s marketable or not: they just do the best they can to treat the disease and allow you to live a healthy, productive life again, while providing support and encouragement to both patient and family. Obviously, not everyone makes it, but my dad got an extra year and a half the doctors didn’t think he had, and that time included some of my fondest memories.

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.

by Doogie2K on Nov 6, 2009 8:46 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs

Cheers to that. Tough topic, because with the “marketable cancers” — boy, how did we get to that phrase? — I suspect awareness is being raised among people who otherwise wouldn’t have it on the radar. Almost like a gateway awareness, instead of drug. I bet selecting prostate cancer as a cause is done for similar reasons (“Hey, I’m a man! I have a prostrate! That could be me!” replaces “I’m a woman!” or “That could be my mom!”), instead of, say, pancreatic cancer, which hits fewer people but absolutely destroys when it does.

Weird game, picking your diseases/causes. I’d assume the Hockey Fights Cancer effort doesn’t discriminate, even if the pink is the (quite effective) visual hook.

Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.

by Dominik on Nov 6, 2009 10:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

thanks for saying what I’ve been thinking. My mom had a very rare cancer and thanks to the hard work of a lot of people at the US National Institutes of Health and the University of Maryland, she’s still here today (you can guess where my donations go to). Sadly, the majority of those with this cancer die. I hate how people in my office look at me like I’m a leper because I don’t wear pink, don’t donate publicly, and don’t get into the “rah rah! Fight breast cancer!” crap. I’d feel less defensive if we just had a “donate to cancer research/support/awareness” day. But to limit it to a specific cancer kinda rubs me the wrong way.

by RedBirdie on Nov 6, 2009 12:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I have to rec this for it being the painful truth. My mother, too, went through breast cancer, and while it was still a difficult experience, from start to finish there was always a very good probability of her survival. However, having lost most of the rest of my extended family to various other types of cancer, I’ve become… well, I won’t say ‘cynical’ perhaps, but I will say ‘jaded’ toward the breast cancer-specific movements.

by Vent on Nov 6, 2009 2:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Indeed

I had a feeling I’d be flamed for making that comment, but, alas, I’m heartened by the response. I have nothing at all against donations for breast cancer research and I do think it’s great, but do people who haven’t been touched with cancer realize just how many different forms of the disease there are? Do they not realize how many different colored ‘ribbons’ there are and what they stand for?

My mother is a survivor of lymphoma, a cancer it would make sense the NHL would be more concerned with. She purchased a ribbon colored to correspond with her disease (green, if I recall correctly) and was given dirty looks within the oncology she was treated at for refusing to wear another pink one for breast cancer. This is wrong on so many levels.

There are so many different types of cancer out there, yet breast cancer is the ‘celebrity’ among them. Sure, the Susan G. Kohman crew has done a great job at raising awareness and they should be applauded for doing so, but as a male, I get sick and tired of being asked to donate to find a ‘cure’ for breast cancer and nothing for prostate cancer, a disease that naturally would affect me on a more personal level and has with my late grandfather. Yeah, I know men can get breast cancer too.

Why not just raise funds and awareness for overall cancer? Why must professional sports leagues only decide to promote one foundation over all the others? Can’t the NFL, for instance, shed the pink goal posts and instead put web site link to donate to the Cancer Center of America that researches all forms of cancer and not just one? Couldn’t the NHL have stayed generic with ‘Cancer Awareness Month’ and not pushed players to wear pink? Would it not have been far better for the NHL and the various other hockey leagues across N.A. to encourage players to wear whatever cancer color they chose instead of just pink?

by Chad_ on Nov 6, 2009 4:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

She purchased a ribbon colored to correspond with her disease (green, if I recall correctly) and was given dirty looks within the oncology she was treated at for refusing to wear another pink one for breast cancer. This is wrong on so many levels.

Wow. What is wrong with those people?

Also, thanks to everyone with the supportive comments. It’s not a popular opinion, but with my personal experience, it’s something I feel strongly about. While all cancers were not inherently created equal, that doesn’t mean the current disparity that exists between them is in any way acceptable.

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.

by Doogie2K on Nov 6, 2009 6:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

they handed out pink ribbon pins at my office a couple weeks ago and I got some nasty looks, and a few under-the-breath comments, when I didn’t wear mine.

by RedBirdie on Nov 6, 2009 10:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Indeed. Good on them for it.

The Calgary Hitmen are participating as well. That is just mildly cruel to the 16 year olds…

by Resolute on Nov 5, 2009 11:03 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

The USA Rugby Men’s Senior National Team is also participating for the second consecutive year, and has been very proactive in encouraging USA Rugby’s member clubs to do so as well across the nation. My old club (the University of South Carolina) is participating for the second year as well, for example.

by VA Libertarian on Nov 6, 2009 12:10 AM CST via mobile reply actions 0 recs

At least half of the team behind SilverSevenSens.com (i.e. me) is also participating in Movember, although I have a feeling the Oilers have a better chance of raising more than I do…

www.silversevensens.com

by PeterR on Nov 6, 2009 2:51 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Breast cancer might also get attention because it IS more survivable. It’s easier to feel as though something is being done if it looks like more people are getting treatment and surviving longer – donating time and effort to a different cancer that is less survivable (unless there is a personal history with it) might feel more like throwing money away because the cause seems hopeless. Breast cancer might make people feel as though they are donating money to a cause that is actually effective at reducing death rates. Just a guess.

But the people who make snide comments about not caring because you aren’t wearing a ribbon should be smacked for their insensitivity – they have no idea about what someone does in more substantial ways than wearing a scrap of ribbon as their only contribution.

"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero

by Baroque on Nov 7, 2009 7:53 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

That’s a fair point, but even so, less survivable cancers don’t become more survivable by continuing to ignore them. The old cliche about the rich getting richer feels disturbingly apt here.

Really, the best counterpoint is that, for all the differences between cancers, they do share certain similarities, and research into one may yield insights that help make another more treatable. I’m not sure how much that effect really occurs in the course of research, but I’m sure it’s there.

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.

by Doogie2K on Nov 8, 2009 3:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

From The Rink: An SB Nation Community

Network Bar

From The Rink -

SB Nation's hockey blog