DeNiro Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 LA is either knowingly breaking the rules, or they think that there is some other ground to terminate - i.e. withholding information, or some dark secret. That's my point, maybe there is more to it. I still haven't seen the amount that he supposedly was in possession of. If it was enough to be considered trafficking, he could have a federal charge which would make travel around North America impossible, without a pardon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 This is one the NHL would love to win, but it's one the NHLPA just cannot afford to lose. Consider also the fact that this is a pain-killer, not crack. Oxy addiction is an occupational risk, and very common. Also, 29 other management groups are more than likely pissed too. Oxy is also a well known party drug too. One that's become very popular with young people. If it can be determined that he was bringing it back for other NHL players, that could be a serious charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted August 11, 2015 Author Share Posted August 11, 2015 Forgot to search to... http://forum.canucks.com/topic/370586-report-mrichardsla-contract-terminated/ Really? And it's "Forgot to search too..." Considering that thread is well more than a month old and the last post was July 6th, I think it's safe to say it isn't necessary to bump it versus a new thread. Not to mention this is about the NHLPA grieving the termination, where that was the termination itself. I don't know why this would be assumed. As of ten days ago: https://www.google.ca/search?q=mike+richards+charged&oq=mike+richards+charged&aqs=chrome..69i57.3521j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=mike+richards+charged&tbm=nws For a guy that rags on other people for not searching for things, you sure could have pretty quickly searched for whether or not Richards had been charged. I'll rephrase: he's certainly been caught with something rather than just involved in an investigation and, as DeNiro says, it's probably a foregone conclusion. You even replied to note he'd been arrested, where Kane hasn't. I think you can agree that they aren't really 100% comparable to the point where we'd say if Richard's contract was terminated then Kane's would have to be as well. I'm not sure why we'd quibble over this in relation to why he was terminated but Kane won't be, but I definitely understand the discussion as it relates to whether or not the Richards termination might be overturned. But as I've said a few times, there's more we'll need to hear on this before we can really judge if it's warranted or not. We also know there are different procedures and not as much in place for this kind of outcome when it comes to more regular crimes (such as the Voyonov case and Kane if that does turn into charges) than there is for drugs. The Standard Player Contract has stipulations about conduct generally, but is more specific on drugs and depending on the circumstance could allow a contract to be terminated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeslerPlaysLikeACanadian Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 That's my point, maybe there is more to it. I still haven't seen the amount that he supposedly was in possession of. If it was enough to be considered trafficking, he could have a federal charge which would make travel around North America impossible, without a pardon. I am hoping that this happens with Voynov. If you can't cross the border you can't play. But I am still sure that the way LA handled it would be jumping the gun, if they are just presuming he'll face this restriction. Either they have something good, which is likely enough I guess, or they'll get smashed. It will be interesting to see, but my money is on a backroom settlement where we never learn the details or payout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canorth Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Really? And it's "Forgot to search too..." Considering that thread is well more than a month old and the last post was July 6th, I think it's safe to say it isn't necessary to bump it versus a new thread. Not to mention this is about the NHLPA grieving the termination, where that was the termination itself. Reported for min-modding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Really? And it's "Forgot to search too..." Considering that thread is well more than a month old and the last post was July 6th, I think it's safe to say it isn't necessary to bump it versus a new thread. Not to mention this is about the NHLPA grieving the termination, where that was the termination itself. I'll rephrase: he's certainly been caught with something rather than just involved in an investigation and, as DeNiro says, it's probably a foregone conclusion. You even replied to note he'd been arrested, where Kane hasn't. I think you can agree that they aren't really 100% comparable to the point where we'd say if Richard's contract was terminated then Kane's would have to be as well. I'm not sure why we'd quibble over this in relation to why he was terminated but Kane won't be, but I definitely understand the discussion as it relates to whether or not the Richards termination might be overturned. But as I've said a few times, there's more we'll need to hear on this before we can really judge if it's warranted or not. We also know there are different procedures and not as much in place for this kind of outcome when it comes to more regular crimes (such as the Voyonov case and Kane if that does turn into charges) than there is for drugs. The Standard Player Contract has stipulations about conduct generally, but is more specific on drugs and depending on the circumstance could allow a contract to be terminated. Of all people, you shouldn't be the one accusing me of making a trivial argument. Would I make this argument with someone else? No. However, if you find this annoying, perhaps now you know how other people feel when you make trivial points that do not contribute to discussion. Go back through all my posts and I'm sure you'll see I know the difference between 'too' and 'to'. Go back through your posts, and we'll find hundreds of trivial arguments that you have made. Moreover, I wasn't talking about your failure to search through CDC, I was talking about how you assumed charges had been laid, when a search of Google would have told you otherwise. "He's certainly been caught with something" becomes less and less certain given the delay in laying a charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 They said they suspect this is what happened. Just speculation, no more in the know than anything anyone on here would speculate. Some people's ability to accurately speculate is greater than others. I'd trust a lawyer familiar with such processes over the CDC population. But again, this is CDC, and everyone knows more than the experts. I'm not saying Macramalla is definitely right, just that in the absence of any inside info, I'd prefer to listen to someone who actually typically knows what they are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canorth Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 in the absence of any inside info, I'd prefer to listen to someone who actually typically knows what they are talking about. That's usually how fox news reports things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 That's usually how fox news reports things. Fox news does not consult experts, they consult people who will say what they want them to say. Do you really believe that your opinion is more likely to be accurate than a lawyer with experience dealing with teams voiding contracts? If so, you'd be more like Fox News than anything I've said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucksfollower1983 Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Except one is still an allegation, whereas Richards was basically caught red handed, so to speak. The bottom line is, if the NHL deems Richards is able to play in the NHL still, then the Kings should be stuck with his cap hit. Oxy's are not illegal, since he wasn't arrested, that would lead us to believe he had a valid prescription. In that case it shouldn't matter if he had them since he had them legally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeefcakeBo Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 I'm sure more will come out on this, and I'll try and add it to the thread, but many of us wondered if there'd be anything filed by Richards or the NHLPA. EDIT: almost forgot the tag Probably should lock this thread up since we have already been discussing Richards contract and attempted termination here(http://forum.canucks.com/topic/371210-the-la-kings-nhl-and-selective-enforcement/#entry12910556) for quite some time. A simple search of the forum would have pointed you in the right direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Oxy's are not illegal, since he wasn't arrested, that would lead us to believe he had a valid prescription. In that case it shouldn't matter if he had them since he had them legally. Oxycotin is illegal without a prescription* If he had a prescription this would be a non story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Do you really believe that your opinion is more likely to be accurate than a lawyer with experience dealing with teams voiding contracts? If so, you'd be more like Fox News than anything I've said. I'd believe my opinion is just as accurate as someone who doesn't have all the facts, and is simply providing opinion for he sake of a story yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canorth Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 I'm just wondering why this is in Canucks Talk "Trades, Rumours and Signings.". http://forum.canucks.com/forum/2-around-the-nhl/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted August 11, 2015 Author Share Posted August 11, 2015 Of all people, you shouldn't be the one accusing me of making a trivial argument. Would I make this argument with someone else? No. However, if you find this annoying, perhaps now you know how other people feel when you make trivial points that do not contribute to discussion. Go back through all my posts and I'm sure you'll see I know the difference between 'too' and 'to'. Go back through your posts, and we'll find hundreds of trivial arguments that you have made. Moreover, I wasn't talking about your failure to search through CDC, I was talking about how you assumed charges had been laid, when a search of Google would have told you otherwise. "He's certainly been caught with something" becomes less and less certain given the delay in laying a charge. I never said you didn't know the difference between 'to' and 'too'. You may not know the difference between quoting someone else and quoting you though if you think I said you were the one incorrectly using the two words. I said I'd rephrase it and I did, and you jumped on my original reply to another poster who was essentially saying the Richards and Kane situation are both should be terminated (or neither should) even though Richards had been arrested but Kane hasn't. I tried to clear up why their different and why they can't be used in the same way to support the NHL's grievance. I can only assume based on the continued response that you feel they are comparable? Do you think we should be discussing the Kane incident here in relation to the Richards grievance and if it will help overturn the termination? I already said I understand how the details of the Richards case will matter in if the termination stands or not (as little as we know), so you really need to clarify where you're going with this. ...for quite some time ago. .... FTFY. But you knew that already and you understand how this is new information related to but not the same as his termination. If it was an active discussion I'd understand, and I did check to be sure before posting but since it hadn't been posted in for over a month I created a new thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted August 11, 2015 Author Share Posted August 11, 2015 . . One more and you can make an ellipsis! I really do have no idea what you're thinking on this grievance though, feel free to share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canorth Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 One more and you can make an ellipsis! I really do have no idea what you're thinking on this grievance though, feel free to share. No grievance. Meant to be somewhat of joke, obviously in bad taste. Meant no offense. Apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Yep. And players agree to not use any performance enhancing drugs. They break those terms, and there may be a case to terminate their contracts. Also if there is a charge that bars him from crossing the border, he wouldn't be able to play in the NHL. Bob Probert did.To me we need all the facts and if they are not 100% then he should be paid or bought out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.