Jim Kelley says the only thing worse than Steve Downie’s cheap shot on Jason Blake was Bob Clarke’s defence of it.

Maybe it's because of the never-ending story swirling about in the centre of the hockey universe, the future of the Toronto Maple Leafs -- one of the least interesting teams in the league this season -- but one media can't help but fixate upon.

Maybe it's because there was the distraction of the outdoor game in Buffalo or maybe it was because people tend not to pay much attention to people who have said so many inane things that they are no longer perceived as relevant or even interesting, especially when they are no longer in a position of power, influence or relevance.

Whatever the reason former Philadelphia Flyers general manager Bob Clarke remarks regarding his defence of Flyers winger Steve Downie flew under the NHL radar last week, it's up to the league not to ignore them.

Bad enough the league didn't suspend Downie for his cowardly cheap shot punch to the eye of Toronto Maple Leafs forward while Jason Blake was being restrained by linesman during a game at the Air Canada Centre, but I've covered that issue in a previous column.

The issue here is that Clarke's defence of Downie's actions recently in a television interview strike me as more offensive than Downie's actions.

Clarke's take on the incident was as follows: "I loved it," he said. "Blake was a guy who had no problem going out and saying (Downie) should be suspended for life or suspended for the year (given Downie's hit on a fellow NHLer). When you say something that stupid, why shouldn't this kid go after him for it? The kid did what every hockey player should do. If a player like Blake, who's been around as long as he has, wants to criticize a player, then he has to go on the ice with him and suffer the consequences."

Now I've long stopped believing that Clarke says things just for fun. For me the turning point came when he blamed team problems on the fact that then Flyers coach Roger Neilson "got cancer" and "went all goofy on us."

The only positive one could ever take from that statement was that it made people forget his incomprehensible defence of convicted felon Alan Eagleson for his fraudulent actions while executive director of the NHL Players’ Association.

Now nothing will likely ever top the Neilson spiel, but the defence of Downie comes close.

Think about this one for awhile. Clarke is arguing that Blake deserved to be assaulted while being unable to defend himself because he spoke out against head hunting in the National Hockey League.

This is the equivalent of basketball coach Bob Knight's famous statement that female rape victims should “relax and enjoy it.”

In terms of stupidity it ranks with former Cincinnati Reds owner Marge Schott noting that "Hitler was good at the beginning but he went too far," or former heavyweight boxer Mike Tyson saying of the woman he was convicted of raping: "Now I really do want to rape her."

But in this case, Clarke is not only blaming the victim as did Tyson and Knight, but he's advocating a Todd Bertuzzi-like event. He's saying that revenge needs to be taken no matter what the circumstances. He's saying that Downie had a right to punch Blake in the eye while Blake was being restrained by on-ice officials because Blake violated some sort of unwritten "code" apparently the one that declares that any semblance of civility, fair play or honorable face-to-face challenge may be ignored so long as a player as says or does something deemed to be "stupid."

Now put aside for the moment the logical conclusion that if Clarke's theory held any weight he would likely be the most beat upon person in or out of hockey and consider what he's advocating: In the world according to Bob Clarke, opponents may be beaten while unable to defend themselves simply because they said something that an NHL "policeman" doesn't agree with. If that were to be the norm you can make an argument that current Flyers general manager Paul Holmgren would be “entitled” to beat the snot out of NHL executive vice president Colin Campbell for suspensions that Holmgren might consider excessive.

It means that if a player takes exception to a hit or even a comment regards a teammate he has the right, even if weeks have passed, to track him down from behind, sucker-punch him upside the head and then bulldog him to the ice with license to break his neck in the process.

In Clarke's world one would think that Roger Neilson needed to be slapped down for getting sick and wanting to get his job back after the cancer, for a time at least, went into remission.

Heck, in the world according to Bob, any hockey player should be able to do what Downie did to Blake or Bertuzzi did to Steve Moore or Marty McSorley did to Donald Brashear (stick assault from behind). Under Bobby's law, Bertuzzi, should Moore ever return to the game, would have the right to smack him around while a linesman or two held him down just because Moore had the audacity to take his complaints to the court rather than settle the issue of his broken neck on the field of play, you know, man to man, "the way every hockey player should do."

This is the kind of thinking that makes hockey people a kind of running joke in other sport leagues and an absurdity everywhere else.

This is the kind of statement that does more damage to the game than most any of Downie's blindside hits or cheap-shot punches.

This is the kind of statement that warrants a fine or suspension for conduct detrimental to the game.

Downie got a pass the last time. Perhaps because Campbell took pity on a young player who is young, out of control and, seemingly, not very bright.

What's Clarke's excuse?

He should be fined; big time.