CBC has waded into the Don Cherry "pukes" controversy, issuing a statement that distances itself from the Hockey Night in Canada star.

CBC has waded into the Don Cherry "pukes" controversy, issuing a statement that distances itself from the Hockey Night in Canada star.

In it, Kirstine Stewart, CBC's Executive Vice-President of English Services comments:

I wish to clarify, in no uncertain terms, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's position on this issue.

Don's comments reflect his own personal opinion. While we support his right to voice that opinion, we do not share his position. Player safety is a top priority for CBC, and we support the initiatives of the NHL and others in keeping players safe on and off the ice.

Cherry has received much criticism for his comments on Thursday:

The ones that I am really disgusted with … are the bunch of pukes that fought before: Stu Grimson, Chris Nilan and Jim Thomson. (They say) 'Oh, the reason that they're drinking, (taking) drugs and alcoholics is because they're fighting.' You turncoats. You hypocrites.

[node:ad]

The trio named in the comment weren't impressed, and Cherry's Saturday semi-regret (the same day CBC issued its statement) for using the word "pukes" hasn't stemmed their outrage.

According to the Toronto Star, they released a statement today through a Nashville law firm.

As quoted by the Star:

During CBC’s broadcast of Coach’s Corner on Oct. 6, 2011, Don Cherry inserted himself into a prominent debate involving the recent deaths of three (3) NHL players, drug addiction, alcohol abuse and mental illness. In doing so, Mr. Cherry targeted the above-named individuals, some of whom have suffered from such diseases, as a result of views they previously expressed. Mr. Cherry’s comments were more than inappropriate; they were baseless and slanderous. Furthermore, Mr. Cherry’s subsequent attempt to qualify his comments on Oct. 8, 2011, was entirely ineffectual. Mr. Cherry’s conduct throughout has demonstrated a complete lack of decency.

In light of the damaging and inflammatory nature of Mr. Cherry’s comments, Messrs. Grimson, Nilan and Thomson are considering further recourse.

The statement does not indicate what, exactly, that recourse may be.

In the meantime, weigh in: Did Cherry go too far — or is that the nature of TV commentary?