The quotes and comments to surface in the wake of the Sabres for sale story point to one thing: doublespeak.

Good day boys and girls, nice of you to attend today's class. But be warned: The subject matter is complicated; but that is often the case when dealing with the semantics of pro sports.

It may not be as enlightening as debating the wisdom of Brian Burke's next move or Sean Avery's problem with Aphtae epizooticae (foot and mouth disease) but it is important in helping you deal with the fascinating world of hockey double-speak.

Please open your e-book to yesterday's collection of repeated 'Buffalo Sabres for Sale' denials.

Although it is only 24 hours after a day of repeated denials to a story posted on this web site and making the rounds in Buffalo and New York, but yet another NHL team is for sale and talks have reached the stage where price is being discussed.

So let's examine what's out there.

One thing we've learned is that the art of denial is exactly that; it is an art form and it has reached new and fascinating heights.

For instance, lost in a spate of denunciations is the fact that no one in the Sabres organization denied the original point of the story that the team is for sale. What minority partner Larry Quinn said was that, "We are not in negotiations to sell the team." Quinn neither named the "we" nor did he say that team owner Tom Golisano, the man most likely to be in the discussions to sell the franchise he purchased out of bankruptcy in 2003, was or was not involved. In fact, Golisano is said to be at the winter meetings in Florida but nowhere to be seen or heard. The owner made no public appearance after Day 1 of the Board of Governors meetings despite the fact he winters in Florida and the other 29 owners have, essentially, come to his house.

Golisano made no media appearances and issued no statement.

So despite what the minority partner said, the owner, the man destined to be involved in the sale of his team, has not only not commented, he has largely gone AWOL.

It reminds me of the time Sabres general manager Darcy Regier was asked if his then star goaltender, Dominik Hasek, was to undergo offseason surgery for a much-rumoured-though-never-confirmed sports hernia. Regier, speaking at a post-season media conference said of the surgery, "No, we don't anticipate surgery, not at this time."

There is no doubt in my mind, or I suspect in Regier's mind either, that he was telling the truth. The out, however, was the "not at this time" addendum. Technically, the words "this time" expire just nanoseconds after spoken. Regier didn't lie; he just defined the subject in the narrowest of terms. An well-used tactic of doublespeak.

Of course Hasek had the surgery late in the offseason, came to camp, was cleared to play (although the team doctor at that time went on record that he had refused to clear him to play and promptly resigned). Hasek then injured or re-injured himself and missed half of the following season.

Doublespeak example No. 2: Then Boston Bruins general manager Harry Sinden, in Buffalo with his team and rumoured strongly to be on the verge of an in-season coaching change, was asked if he had met rumoured coaching candidate Jim Schoenfeld while he was in Buffalo.

Sinden denied contact and then, days later when he was introducing Schoenfeld as his new coach, was asked to explain his Schoenfeld denial. "You asked me if I met with Jim while in Buffalo," Sinden said. "I didn't, I met with him in Lockport." Lockport is a northern suburb of Buffalo and where Schoenfeld lived at the time. Classic.

The point in both cases: Truth took a beating, but nobody lied.

These craftily-worded, truth-beating denials are everywhere. Back to Quinn and Buffalo, in expounding on his point Quinn went on to say that, "I would never discuss selling the team to anyone who would move it," and "I don't know how we could be any clearer."

Well, there are several points to be made here:

1. Though Quinn plays the role of an owner quite well, he has a single-digit equity share of Golisano's team, believed to be about eight percent. It is not his team to sell so he's being truthful. He does have a stake in the proceeds of any sale, but Golisano controls all transactions. It is Golisano's team to sell and, as noted above, he hasn't said a word.

2. Quinn may also be accurate when he added, "to anyone who would move it." In doing so he ignored a crucial point. The story said that either Quinn or a representative had approached Jim Balsillie, co-owner of Research in Motion about the idea that if Balsillie bought the team the Sabres might be agreeable to playing some home games in nearby Hamilton.

No one suggested the team was moving, just willing to consider playing some games north of the border (something the franchise has done before).

Quinn could have been clearer by saying he "didn't do that nor did anyone representing him." He left out any mention of a representative. Oddly enough, a spokesman for Balsillie said the reports that Balsillie was approached were both unfair and unfortunate, but he did not deny them outright. He also slipped in the word "generally" when saying reports involving an interest from Balsillie were untrue. The keyword here is generally. It's a far different word then always.

Now as any student or even observer of journalism knows when the media is behind on a story -- in this case reacting to the story that the team is for sale -- the first rule of thumb is to get an affirmation or a denial. People who deal with the media regularly know this and if the story is untrue they offer up a flat-out denial and usually from the highest source possible. They also tend to tack on a repudiation of the story or the person who wrote it.

However, if the story is true but must be denied, you get what happened Monday, an adamant statement -- in this case a denial that the team would be moved -- to something that was never alleged and a carefully crafted response referring to negotiations, which, by definition, only take place when parties are actually negotiating. Since Quinn was playing golf at the time the story broke and not with the prospective new owner, it was accurate to say "we are not in negotiations."

What he didn't say is that the owner is not engaged in talks and that the two sides have not reached a point where price has been discussed and that neither he nor a representative has reached out to someone who had shown an interest in the franchise in the past and still has an interest in buying a team and owns the managerial rights to a building where some games could possibly be played if Jim Balsillie were to buy the team.

Clever phrasing aside, that's exactly what's happened.

The talks involving the possible sale of the Sabres are real and verified by impeccable sources. It could still fall through. It could still be a problem for the NHL if the price isn't to its liking (that too was reported and ignored in the response), another prospective bidder could emerge to trump the one now making headway, but none of that takes away from the fact that the franchise is for sale and that a number of people, including well placed people in the National Hockey League know it.

All of which is being denied through doublespeak in the hopes that by making enough noise it will be ignored.

Fair enough; that's what double-speakers are obligated to do. But this is a two-prong issue and here are the facts that no one can deny: Sabres owner B. Thomas Golisano has been approached by an as yet unnamed person who has an interest in buying the team and his front man, Quinn, is reaching out to find someone who might both trump that offer and allow him to remain as managing partner.

If you learn to read between the lines, you'll see that neither statement has truthfully been denied.

Or doublespeak, for short.