New video, new questions: What happened to Matthew Mayich and how a summer workout led to a catastrophic collapse

Table of Contents

1. Key Highlights
2. Introduction
3. What the footage shows and what ASU’s preliminary review revealed
4. Exertional heat stroke: what it is, how it damages the body, and why rapid care matters
5. How immediate response and emergency plans shape outcomes
6. What the ASU case raises about outside trainers and institutional oversight
7. Heat monitoring, scheduling and mitigation: what athletics departments do to reduce risk
8. Legal and institutional accountability: what may come next
9. Why the timeline of treatment matters: a hypothetical minute-by-minute perspective
10. The athlete and the program: who was Matthew Mayich?
11. The broader culture of intense conditioning and where it can go wrong
12. What institutions should change now: a practical checklist
13. Precedent and reform: lessons from prior tragedies
14. Public and media reaction: the role of video and social scrutiny
15. What families, programs and regulators can expect next
16. Practical advice for teams, parents and athletes
17. Where the law and public expectation intersect
18. The human cost beyond the headlines
19. What to watch for in the coming weeks
20. FAQ

Key Highlights

• Newly released footage and a preliminary Arizona State University review show St. Louis Blues prospect Matthew Mayich collapsed after an unsupervised outdoor calisthenics workout on Aug. 20; ASU officials said no formal training plan was submitted to its strength-and-conditioning staff beforehand.
• Medical reports indicate Mayich suffered exertional heat stroke that deprived his brain of oxygen; his family’s attorney says he is unlikely to recover and is in stable but critical condition. The incident has renewed scrutiny of emergency planning, external trainers and heat-illness prevention at universities.

Introduction

A short, grainy clip recorded on a summer field has reopened a painful set of questions about athlete safety, institutional oversight and the consequences of high-intensity workouts in hot environments. The subject of the video is 21-year-old Matthew Mayich, a promising hockey forward drafted by the St. Louis Blues, who collapsed during a group workout on the Arizona State University campus on Aug. 20. The university’s preliminary internal review and video obtained by media outlets show players pushed through calisthenics and running in roughly 30°C conditions under the direction of former U.S. Army Green Beret Tim Ziesel. Mayich failed to finish the session, fell, and became unresponsive. Physicians concluded he suffered exertional heat stroke that caused oxygen deprivation to his brain. His condition remains critical and his family questions why established safety protocols were not followed.

The episode has prompted medical experts, athletic departments and legal advisers to re-examine what universities should require when outside trainers work with student-athletes, how heat illness should be prevented and treated, and what constitutes reasonable supervision. The video and ASU’s review illustrate how a routine-looking workout can cascade into a life-altering emergency when planning, monitoring and immediate treatment are inadequate.

The following narrative reconstructs the known facts, explains the medical mechanics behind exertional heat stroke, reviews accepted best practices for prevention and on-field care, places the incident in the context of prior cases that led to policy changes, and lays out the institutional and legal questions now facing ASU, its hockey program and collegiate sports more broadly.

What the footage shows and what ASU’s preliminary review revealed

Video released through local sports outlets shows a group of hockey players doing an outdoor training session at Arizona State University’s Sun Angel Stadium on Aug. 20. The session appears to be led by Tim Ziesel, identified in reports as a former U.S. Army Green Beret who had been invited to speak to or train the team. Players can be seen performing callisthenics — pushups, planks and other bodyweight exercises — and running. Several athletes appear to struggle during repetitions.

ASU’s preliminary review, prepared by university official James Rund and released publicly, states the hockey coaching staff requested permission for Ziesel to speak to the team but “did not submit a plan of training activities for review by ASU’s strength and conditioning coaches prior to the event.” The review notes the ambient temperature was roughly 30°C. According to the timeline in the report, Mayich collapsed just before 8:30 a.m. He “appeared to struggle, and then in rapid succession stumbled, dropped the medicine ball and fell to the ground,” the review says. Mayich attempted to rise and continue but then fell to his knees and became unresponsive.

The report documents the activities performed — “callisthenics, bodyweight exercises such as pushups and planks and running” — and that the event took place outdoors. It does not, in the preliminary public summary, describe the specific medical care he received on site or the exact timing of cooling interventions, though the university is conducting an internal review to examine preparation, supervision and response.

Family attorney Rob Carey has characterized Mayich’s injuries as severe and permanent. Carey said Mayich suffered exertional heat stroke that “reduced the flow of oxygen to his brain” and that he is “unlikely to recover.” Carey criticized ASU’s handling of the emergency, saying there was “no plan and no preparation” when Mayich went down and accused the university of inadequate treatment that possibly worsened his chances.

The footage and the university’s public statements together suggest a gap between how the workout was scheduled and how the institution’s medical and conditioning personnel were involved. That gap is at the center of the debate over responsibility.

Exertional heat stroke: what it is, how it damages the body, and why rapid care matters

Exertional heat stroke is a life-threatening medical emergency that arises when intense physical activity in heat overwhelms the body’s ability to regulate temperature. Core body temperature can rise rapidly, causing a cascade of physiological failures: loss of consciousness, impaired cardiac function, systemic inflammation, coagulopathy and, crucially, brain injury.

Mechanism and progression

• Elevated core temperature disrupts the integrity of cellular structures and enzymes, impairing organ function. The brain is particularly vulnerable to sustained hyperthermia.
• As the body overheats, blood is shunted toward the skin to facilitate cooling. That can lower cerebral perfusion — the blood flow to the brain — compounding the damage.
• Heat stroke commonly produces multi-organ dysfunction: kidneys, liver and the coagulation system may fail. If oxygen delivery to the brain is markedly reduced and not promptly restored, hypoxic-ischemic brain injury can occur.

Signs and red flags Symptoms can escalate quickly and include collapse, confusion, seizures, vomiting, rapid breathing, hot dry skin (though sweaty skin does not exclude heat stroke), and loss of consciousness. In exertional cases, athletes often show earlier signs — dizziness, collapse after intense exertion, altered coordination — that should trigger immediate intervention.

Evidence-based emergency treatment The single most important determinant of outcome in exertional heat stroke is rapid cooling. Cold-water immersion — submerging the patient in an ice-water bath — is the gold standard and can rapidly reduce core temperature. When immersion is available and feasible, it should be initiated immediately, ideally within minutes; studies show outcomes deteriorate significantly if cooling is delayed beyond roughly 30 minutes.

Other measures — evaporative cooling, ice packs, cooling blankets — are less effective than immersion. Airway, breathing and circulation should be assessed and supported. Continuous monitoring and transport to a hospital follow initial cooling. The speed of recognition and the speed and accuracy of on-site cooling correlate strongly with short- and long-term neurological outcomes.

Why delay matters Heat-related encephalopathy and irreversible brain injury increase when cooling is delayed or inadequate. The family’s assertion that treatment “hurt his chances rather than helped them” points directly to timing and method of cooling as potential focal points of scrutiny. Medical-legal reviews in similar past cases have repeatedly highlighted failures to provide immediate, appropriate cooling and failures to have a clear Emergency Action Plan (EAP) as critical errors.

How immediate response and emergency plans shape outcomes

Collegiate athletic programs typically maintain an Emergency Action Plan that details roles, communication protocols, emergency equipment and specific procedures for conditions that include heat illness. An effective EAP specifies who will act, how bystanders and staff will coordinate, where the closest ice baths or immersion tubs are located, and how emergency medical services (EMS) will be engaged.

Key components of an effective on-field response for heat emergencies:

• Trained medical personnel on site or immediately available, including certified athletic trainers (ATs) who can diagnose heat illness and initiate treatment.
• Readily accessible cold-water immersion setup or an alternative rapid-cooling solution.
• A clear chain of command and rehearsed roles so that when an athlete collapses, someone begins cooling while another calls EMS and a third secures airway/circulation as needed.
• Monitoring equipment and clear protocols for transport and documentation.

When these elements are in place, survival and neurological outcomes improve. When they are absent or delayed, the risk of permanent injury rises.

Past cases that changed standards Several high-profile athlete deaths have reshaped how institutions approach heat illness preparedness. Korey Stringer, an NFL player, died of exertional heat stroke in 2001 during Vikings training camp. The tragedy prompted extensive research and the creation of the Korey Stringer Institute (KSI), which focuses on prevention of exertional heat illness in sport. Another instructive example is the death of Maryland football player Jordan McNair in 2018; a subsequent investigation found critical failures in the recognition and treatment of heat illness, and the case led to legal settlements and revisions to athletic department oversight and policy. Those events influenced widespread adoption of policies requiring immediate cold-water immersion and clearer supervision standards.

The central lesson from these precedents: rapid recognition and appropriate on-site cooling must be standard practice, not optional.

What the ASU case raises about outside trainers and institutional oversight

ASU’s preliminary review acknowledges the hockey coaching staff requested the trainer’s involvement but did not submit a training plan for review by the university’s strength-and-conditioning coaches. That procedural omission is pivotal for two reasons.

First, strength-and-conditioning staff routinely assess workouts for safety, ensuring plans account for environmental conditions, athlete readiness and appropriate progressions. When an outside trainer leads a session without coordination, the program loses a layer of medical and logistical oversight.

Second, universities generally have policies governing the use of third-party or external instructors. Those policies typically require prior vetting, agreed scopes of activity, and communication about emergency protocols. If such channels were bypassed or inadequately followed, accountability questions become central: who approved the session, who ensured the trainer’s methods aligned with the program’s safety protocols, and who bore responsibility for medical coverage during the session?

The role of Tim Ziesel Media reports identify Tim Ziesel as a former U.S. Army Green Beret who led the session. Military background can bring valuable leadership, but structured sports conditioning operates within a different set of medical and safety expectations. That distinction makes it essential that outside presenters coordinate with program medical staff and conditioning coaches. A presentation or motivational talk differs materially from a high-intensity group workout that subjects athletes to sustained exertion in heat.

Best practice is to require an explicit written plan for external training activities, reviewed by the athletic department’s strength-and-conditioning and medical staff, and to ensure an athletic trainer is present for any physical exertion session. The preliminary ASU review indicates that did not occur here.

Heat monitoring, scheduling and mitigation: what athletics departments do to reduce risk

Preventing exertional heat stroke requires proactive steps long before a whistle blows.

Environmental monitoring

• Wet-bulb globe temperature (WBGT) is the accepted measure to quantify heat risk because it accounts for humidity, radiant heat and wind. Many collegiate athletic departments use WBGT to modify or cancel outdoor activity.
• Simple air temperature alone is an imperfect measure. High humidity can make a moderate temperature far more dangerous.

Acclimatization

• Athletes moving to hot climates require days to weeks of progressive exposure before full-intensity work is safe. Standard protocols recommend gradual increases in intensity and duration over 7–14 days.
• Preseason acclimatization schedules reduce the risk of exertional heat illness.

Work-rest cycles and hydration

• Practices should integrate frequent breaks, shade, and monitored hydration schedules. Thirst is not a reliable indicator; proactive fluid strategies work better.
• Coaches and trainers must watch for earlier warning signs in individuals who may be less conditioned or previously ill.

Modifying drills and sessions

• High-intensity, prolonged calisthenics and running on hot days are high-risk activities. Programs should adjust volume and intensity based on environmental measures and athlete readiness.
• Medical staff should be empowered to halt or modify sessions if conditions exceed safety thresholds.

Institutional policy and training

• Athletic departments should mandate that any outside trainers submit detailed session plans for review and that medical staff be present for any activity that produces elevated metabolic loads.
• Regular EAP drills and role clarity reduce hesitation during emergencies.

These steps are not theoretical. They are standard in many programs now, especially after cases such as those involving Stringer and McNair revealed the consequences of inadequate preparation.

Legal and institutional accountability: what may come next

The collapse of a student-athlete that results in catastrophic injury triggers multiple avenues of review and potential accountability.

Internal investigations and administrative actions

• ASU has already opened an internal review. That inquiry is likely to examine policies, communication logs, witness statements, whether medical staff were present or notified, and the specific timing of care, including whether cold-water immersion was deployed.
• Administrative consequences could range from policy revisions and required training to personnel actions against staff who failed to follow protocol.

Civil litigation

• Families often pursue civil claims alleging negligence, breach of duty, or negligent supervision. A civil suit would focus on whether the university and its staff reasonably ensured athlete safety and whether failure to follow established protocols caused harm.
• Key factual issues in litigation typically include whether an EAP existed and was followed, the presence and qualifications of medical personnel, the timing of cooling interventions, and whether prior warnings about heat risk were heeded.

Regulatory and public scrutiny

• State authorities or medical boards may review whether public safety standards were violated. Depending on jurisdiction and specific findings, there could be regulatory consequences.
• Public pressure and reputational harm often prompt institutions to adopt more stringent safeguards beyond legal obligations.

The attorney for Mayich’s family, Rob Carey, has already critiqued ASU’s response and called for action. That public posture suggests legal steps and demands for institutional accountability are likely.

Why the timeline of treatment matters: a hypothetical minute-by-minute perspective

Reconstructing the plausible sequence of events clarifies why every minute counts. Consider a typical exertional heat stroke timeline:

0–5 minutes: Athlete shows difficulty completing reps, stumbles or collapses. Immediate recognition by coaching or training staff is essential.

5–10 minutes: Personnel assess consciousness and breathing; cold-water immersion should begin if exertional heat stroke is suspected. If immersion is not immediately available, other cooling methods should be started while arrangements for immersion are made.

10–30 minutes: Core temperature should be decreasing under immersion; airway and circulation monitored. If cooling is delayed beyond this window, organ dysfunction and irreversible brain injury risk rise.

30+ minutes: Delays in initiating rapid cooling correlate with worse outcomes. Transport to hospital occurs once the patient is stabilized or systemic issues necessitate advanced care.

Without precise timestamps from ASU’s review publicly available, independent observers can only speculate about the timing in Mayich’s case. The family’s criticism that “there was no plan and no preparation” centers on the possibility of delayed recognition and delayed initiation of best-practice cooling measures.

The athlete and the program: who was Matthew Mayich?

Understanding Mayich’s background explains why he was part of organized training events and why the incident has drawn attention.

A Canadian native from Stoney Creek, Ontario, Mayich spent four seasons playing junior hockey for the Ottawa 67’s in the Ontario Hockey League, suiting up for 256 total games and recording 21 goals and 99 points across his OHL career. He played the 2025–26 season with Clarkson University and was selected in the sixth round of the 2023 NHL Draft by the St. Louis Blues, a promising sign for his professional prospects.

At 21, Mayich was part of ASU’s hockey program activities. His collapse and resulting brain injury have deprived the hockey community of a young player still early in his career, and his family’s public statements underscore both the personal and professional loss.

The broader culture of intense conditioning and where it can go wrong

Competitive sports culture rewards toughness and perseverance. Pushing through fatigue is often valorized, but that mindset conflates mental resilience with physiological safety. When intensity eclipses judgment in environmental extremes, athletes who might otherwise be fine can suffer life-changing harm.

This cultural problem manifests in several ways:

• Expectation that “pain and suffering” is part of preparation, which can discourage athletes from reporting early symptoms.
• Coaching practices that prioritize uniformity of effort, potentially pressuring less-conditioned athletes to perform beyond safe limits.
• Use of external “motivational” trainers who may bring military-style intensity but lack sport-specific medical oversight.

Cultural changes require adjusting incentives and clarifying that safety protocols and medical judgment override any drill or dictum. Programs that emphasize athlete well-being and require medical staff to have final authority over practice conditions reduce risk.

What institutions should change now: a practical checklist

For universities and athletic programs reassessing policies after an incident like this, the following measures are actionable:

1. Mandatory advance review for all external trainers:
   • Require written workout plans and medical clearance before any physical session conducted by non-staff trainers.
   • Confirm external personnel understand the program’s EAP and chain of command.
2. Strengthen EAPs and rehearse them:
   • Document roles, equipment locations and communication procedures.
   • Conduct regular drills to ensure personnel respond quickly and without hesitation.
3. Ensure athletic trainers are present or on immediate call:
   • For any session involving elevated exertion or conducted outdoors in heat, an AT should be on site.
4. Maintain immediate cooling capability:
   • Have cold-water immersion tubs or readily deployable alternatives at locations where strenuous activity occurs.
   • Ensure staff know how to use immersion efficiently.
5. Monitor environmental risk:
   • Implement routine WBGT measurements and a tiered protocol for modifying or canceling activity.
6. Require acclimatization protocols:
   • Gradually increase workload for athletes relocating from cooler climates.
7. Educate athletes:
   • Train athletes to recognize signs of heat illness and encourage early reporting without stigma.
8. Transparent incident reviews:
   • Conduct independent reviews with publishable findings to restore public trust and identify policy gaps.

Adoption of these measures is cost-effective compared with the lifelong human and reputational costs of catastrophic injury.

Precedent and reform: lessons from prior tragedies

The sports world has established clearer standards precisely because earlier tragedies exposed systemic weaknesses. The death of Korey Stringer in 2001 spurred the KSI and widespread adoption of WBGT monitoring and immersion protocols in professional and collegiate ranks. The death of Jordan McNair in 2018 prompted a re-evaluation at the University of Maryland and beyond, leading to changes in oversight, staff training and punitive actions where negligence was found.

Those cases illustrate two recurring themes: protocols only work if enforced, and external or informal training arrangements require the same vetting and medical oversight as coached sessions. When institutions treat oversight as optional, the risk of harm rises dramatically.

Public and media reaction: the role of video and social scrutiny

The newly obtained video of the ASU workout made the event tangible to a national audience. Visual evidence tends to accelerate public scrutiny and political pressure, especially when it appears to show athletes struggling in heat. Social media amplifies that scrutiny, turning otherwise internal reviews into public demands for accountability. That dynamic often motivates institutions to act faster on policy reforms or administrative discipline than they might otherwise.

The flip side is the risk of incomplete information driving premature conclusions. Video captures only a slice; reconstruction through witness accounts, medical records and timing data remains essential for conclusive findings. Still, the emotional impact of such footage is real and often shapes the trajectory of responses.

What families, programs and regulators can expect next

From the available public statements, several developments are likely:

• ASU will continue its internal review, and the findings may lead to changes in practice oversight and emergency procedures and possibly personnel actions.
• The Mayich family, already represented by an attorney, may pursue civil remedies. That process would seek discovery into records and witness testimony about what precisely happened before and after Mayich’s collapse.
• Universities nationwide will face renewed pressure to audit their own policies on external trainers and heat-illness preparedness. Athletic conferences and governing bodies may issue clarifying guidance or mandates.
• Medical institutions and sports medicine organizations will reiterate the importance of on-site cold-water immersion and quick recognition of exertional heat stroke.

Each of these responses serves as a mechanism to reduce the risk of repeat incidents.

Practical advice for teams, parents and athletes

When athletic activities occur in heat or involve high exertion, stakeholders can take tangible steps to reduce risk.

For athletic departments:

• Enforce written policies requiring medical staff review of any external workout.
• Keep cold-water immersion materials accessible and staff trained to use them.
• Use WBGT monitoring to guide practice intensity or cancellations.

For coaches and trainers:

• Prioritize athlete health over session completion; the athletic trainer has final authority to modify or cancel.
• Avoid one-size-fits-all group drills on hot days; differentiate intensity for less-acclimatized individuals.

For athletes:

• Report symptoms early: lightheadedness, nausea, muscle cramps or inability to finish repetitions.
• Hydrate proactively and follow acclimatization recommendations.

For parents:

• Ask programs about emergency plans, medical staff presence and heat-illness policies before enrollment or participation.
• Encourage open communication with coaches if you perceive symptoms or inadequate supervision.

These steps reduce immediate risk and create a culture where safety is normalized.

Where the law and public expectation intersect

The legal standard for negligence is whether a duty of care existed, whether that duty was breached, and whether the breach caused harm. Universities and athletic programs owe student-athletes a duty to provide reasonably safe conditions and competent medical coverage during supervised activity. Failure to require review of an external trainer’s plan, absence of medical personnel during intense activity, or lack of immersion capabilities could be considered a breach if causally connected to harm.

Public expectations of safety have evolved. High-profile incidents have made it clear that fans and families expect institutions to act proactively. When institutions fail to meet those expectations, consequences may include litigation, regulatory intervention and reputational damage.

The human cost beyond the headlines

Amid policy debates and legal maneuvers, the primary reality remains the human impact. A young athlete in the prime of his life lies in a hospital bed while his family and community wait and hope for improvement. Teammates, coaches and fans grapple with the cognitive dissonance of a routine training drill turning into an irreversible event.

The collective response should balance urgent accountability with compassionate support for the family and community. Athletes choose competitive sports understanding risks exist; they do not expect preventable negligence to be among them.

What to watch for in the coming weeks

Several indicators will show how ASU and other institutions respond:

• Will the final ASU review disclose precise timelines for recognition, cooling initiation and EMS transport?
• Will ASU take immediate administrative actions, such as changes in policy or personnel, pending the final review?
• Will independent medical experts be invited to assess the adequacy of the on-field treatment and to recommend specific changes?
• Will athletic conferences or the NCAA issue guidance about external trainers or mandatory EAP components for heat-related emergencies?

Answers to these questions will determine whether the incident remains an isolated tragedy or sparks systemic change.

FAQ

Q: What exactly happened to Matthew Mayich? A: On Aug. 20, during an outdoor workout at Arizona State University where he and other hockey players were performing calisthenics, medicine ball drills and running, Mayich struggled near the end of the session, stumbled, dropped a medicine ball and collapsed. He became unresponsive and was hospitalized. University documents indicate he suffered exertional heat stroke that led to reduced oxygen delivery to his brain. His family’s attorney says he remains in critical condition and is unlikely to recover.

Q: What is exertional heat stroke and how does it cause brain injury? A: Exertional heat stroke occurs when intense physical activity overwhelms the body’s ability to dissipate heat, causing a dangerous rise in core temperature. Elevated temperature impairs cellular function and can disrupt blood flow to the brain, causing hypoxic-ischemic injury. Multi-organ dysfunction can follow. Rapid cooling is the most important intervention to prevent permanent damage.

Q: Could prompt treatment have made a difference? A: Rapid, evidence-based treatment — most notably immediate cold-water immersion — improves outcomes. Delays or inadequate cooling increase the risk of permanent injury. Whether treatment in Mayich’s case was delayed or insufficient is a central question in ongoing reviews.

Q: Was the workout supervised by ASU staff? A: The university’s preliminary review states the hockey coaching staff requested Tim Ziesel to speak to the team but did not submit a formal training plan for review by ASU’s strength-and-conditioning coaches. That indicates an external trainer led the session without a documented plan approved by the university’s conditioning staff. The review does not, in its preliminary public form, detail whether athletic trainers were present.

Q: Who is responsible when an external trainer leads a workout? A: Responsibility is shared. Athletic departments must permit and oversee external activities. Best practice requires external trainers to submit plans for review and to coordinate with strength-and-conditioning and medical staff. Coaches who invite outside instructors retain supervisory obligations. If institutional policies were not followed, the school may face administrative and legal accountability.

Q: What will ASU likely do now? A: ASU has opened an internal review and will likely investigate supervisory failures, policy compliance, and specifics of the emergency response. Possible outcomes include policy changes, new training requirements, administrative discipline, and public reporting of findings. Legal processes initiated by the family may run concurrently.

Q: Have similar incidents led to reforms in the past? A: Yes. High-profile cases such as the death of NFL player Korey Stringer and the death of Jordan McNair at the University of Maryland prompted institutional and national changes, including greater emphasis on WBGT monitoring, mandatory acclimatization, and the prioritization of cold-water immersion and clear emergency plans.

Q: What should athletic programs do to prevent heat-related emergencies? A: Programs should require medical review of any external training, maintain ready cold-water immersion equipment, use WBGT to guide activity, enforce acclimatization protocols, ensure athletic trainers are present for strenuous sessions, and rehearse EAPs for medical emergencies. Transparency and enforcement of these policies are as important as their existence.

Q: What can families and athletes do to reduce risk? A: Families should ask about safety policies and medical provisions before participation. Athletes should report symptoms early, follow hydration and acclimatization guidance, and be assured that reporting concerns will not be punished. Clear communication between athletes, coaches and medical staff is essential.

Q: Are legal actions expected? A: The family’s attorney has already criticized the university’s response, and civil litigation alleging negligence is a possible avenue. Legal scrutiny will focus on whether ASU and its staff breached their duty of care by failing to enforce safety protocols or to provide timely, appropriate medical treatment.

Q: Where can I find more reliable information about exertional heat stroke and athletic safety? A: Organizations like the Korey Stringer Institute, sports medicine societies, and university athletic medicine departments publish guidelines on heat-illness prevention and treatment. Athletic programs should have accessible policies outlining their heat safety protocols and emergency action plans.

This incident underscores the fragile line between a routine training day and catastrophic harm. It raises urgent questions about institutional oversight, the limits of outside expertise, and how the most straightforward safety measures — a reviewed plan, an athletic trainer on site, and immediate access to rapid cooling — could prevent the worst outcomes. For the Mayich family and the hockey community, answers and reforms cannot come soon enough.