BUT PIERRE, WHY ARE YOU SO NEGATIVE?

By Pierre Filion pierrefilion@bell.net

Yeah, why am I so negative? And as some say why is it that your partner (Rad Joseph) is so positive and you so negative!

Good cop, bad cop!! maybe!

Hey let’s have a look at all this.

THINK LACROSSE’s mission statement indicates that we will promote our best actors (players, coaches, volunteers) and produce critical analyses concerning the challenges to the game.

Rad Joseph is tasked with the first mandate and in fact his posts or articles are very positive because he deals, always, with the game’s greatest ones. We all relive their successes and somehow make their greatness ours, because the great ones all emerge from our family and we are all ‘’family.’’ Because it’s our game.

I am tasked with the production of critical analyses on the challenges to the game. As mentioned often I am not very interested with the scores of different games; I am rather interested with the state of the game, its present and future. Those who know me know very well that I am concerned with the game and have a passion for it. I have spent 43 years with the Canadian Lacrosse Association and all my colleagues, during those years, couldl vouch for my interest and positive contribution to the game. This needs to be said to help understand where I come from and how I contribute to the game. Because it’s our game.

Now, what is a critical analysis and how can it be to the game’s benefit?

I concentrate on Lacrosse Canada because it’s the most important lacrosse association in Canada and because its decision, plans and strategies determine the future of the game; I try to look at it from a distance and from an ‘’outside perspective’’. I try to examine and evaluate situations, actions, plans, budgets and investments and try to find out if what is produced by Lacrosse Canada holds up under scrutiny. In French we use the words ‘’est-ce que ça résiste à l’analyse’’ to determine if the action identified is credible and coherent.

Critical analysis is not bitching and complaining; it’s not an opportunity to shoot someone down or to negatively cover a plan, a budget or a decision. Critical analysis tries to operate from a position of neutrality which is difficult because we all emerge from somewhere and all have our biases and past experiences who color our visions and perspectives. I never claim to be totally neutral in my posts and articles.

I try to deal with facts rather than with the emotions that surround them. I try to ask relevant questions and put forward a point of view that is not mainstream or blindly partisan.

        

Some readers see the benefits of critical analysis and consider it as a positive approach to an issue; some are disappointed because they link it with bitching and complaining and often remain stuck on a word and see not that ‘’the said word’’ is part of a sentence…

In a way, and with obvious reservations, I somehow act as some sort of whistleblower, general auditor and chief trouble shooter.

I deal with facts and have no channel of communication with Lacrosse Canada; somehow, I am deprived of information and can only use, as facts, what Lacrosse Canada officially publishes. I read and try to interpret what is said and done; I weight the evidence and try to see if it holds up to the questions I ask.

And I raise red flags. Some people react, some don’t. Some see relevance; some don’t. Maybe some of the red flags that we have raised this past year have led to the latest changes at Lacrosse Canada. Maybe not!

My only contribution is with the perspective I bring forward and with the questions I ask. All for the betterment of the game.

And that is positive. Sometimes, very positive!