The entire "article" is written based on 1 tweet from a Toronto Sun reporter, which is linked inside the "article". But i'll provide here for reference:
___________________________
Damien Cox
@DamoSpin
Sidney Crosby's agent is convinced Zdeno Chara of the Bruins intentionally punched Crosby where he had broken his jaw in Game 1. Nasty.
https://twitter.com/DamoSpin/status/345661234793811968___________________________
The rest of that original "article" is nothing more than a slanted opinion piece with wild speculation. It also leaves out the fact that the same quoted Toronto Sun reporter has subsequent tweets that say Crosby had nothing to do with the release of the video:
___________________________
Damien Cox
@DamoSpin
Shame Crosby getting blame for suggestion Chara took shot at his broken jaw. Came from his concerned agent. Player knew nothing.
https://twitter.com/DamoSpin/status/345953199292813313___________________________
Damien Cox
@DamoSpin
So Crosby's a whiner. Lemieux was a whiner. And Gretzky was a whiner. Funny how the very bets get torn down in this way. #hockeyeatsitsown
https://twitter.com/DamoSpin/status/345955832741109760___________________________
Whatever you want to believe can be up to the individual. However, you can't just selectively take tweets from a reporter to make your argument while at the same time leaving out other tweets that completely contradict your point, and then expect your argument to hold up. That just doesn't make sense. Its lazy journalism at best. And probably shouldn't even be considered journalism at all.