TOMapleLaughs Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Paul Stewart is also being a tool, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I've never understood this mentality. He had the power to force a trade and he did. It worked out well for the Avalanche. Maybe not so well for the Nords. The draft system isn't really great for a player. Especially a player of Lindros' calibre. Why should you be tied to a particular team until you are 25-27 years old? Especially a team you have no desire to play for. I personally love when players challenge the system. I have friends who hate Eli Manning and what he did to force the Chargers hand. Peyton likely would have never gone to Indy if they had realized that early enough. I love what Eli did. It forces a system run by billionaires to be put in jeopardy. And do you notice how those guys always get traded? They get traded because no one wants them to challenge the draft etc. in court. All the leagues are afraid of losing their anti-trust status. If McDavid is dead set against playing somewhere, he wouldn't have to. He could force a trade. I'd respect him more. What is wrong with worrying about your personal successes? Because playing in the NHL is not a right, and those who think it is are self-entitled brats. You can be free to try and force a team's hand, but don't pretend that you should be able to do so without repercussions. Its like Tim Thomas thinking that he is free to speak his mind and that free speech means that nobody is allowed to challenge what he says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etsen3 Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Because playing in the NHL is not a right, and those who think it is are self-entitled brats. What if you back it up with talent though? Thing is, Lindros was so highly valued at the time, if the Nordiques didn't want him, every single other team in the league would've been happy to take him. I mean having a good job isn't a right, but when you're so good that multiple companies want you, you still get to pick which one to work for. It may have been an entitled move, but it was one he earned the luxury of making due to his immense talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Stewart's professionalism is a greater issue than what kind of player Lindros is. Stewart's job was to call the games in an unbiased manner, which he clearly failed to do. The NHL is plagued with this issue, and should be using this as an opportunity to demonstrate that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I don't think there's much doubt that Lindros is/was a dickhead... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugor Hill Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 "One year, much later in his career when he was with the Rangers, I ended up getting him on eight minor penalties that season. I caught some heat for it from John Davidson on the Rangers' broadcasts, but the truth of the matter was this: I did NOT go out of my way to 'invent' penalties on Lindros -- or any player -- but I wasn't going to give that guy a break on anything borderline that I might have let slide with a player who had gained acceptability with me. So they want their asses kissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Buzzsaw* Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Stewart's article is a clear indication the ref's play favourites... he is the one who should be under scrutiny for his bias. Lindros was not known for being the most friendly of players... but a lot of that had to do with the post concussion effects he was suffering under. Post concussion effects include a tendency towards emotional outbursts, trouble in controlling the temper, etc. Lindros may have been a prima donna, but he was also treated very poorly by the Flyers organization and doctors... any current team medical staff who behaved as they did would be sued for millions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Stewart's article is a clear indication the ref's play favourites... he is the one who should be under scrutiny for his bias. This shouldn't be news to anyone. Once a player has a "reputation" within the refereeing community, it become far less likely that he'll get the benefit of the doubt on close calls. It's been that way since Napoleon was a cadet. Look no further than Alex Burrows for an example of a current player getting similar treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 This shouldn't be news to anyone. Once a player has a "reputation" within the refereeing community, it become far less likely that he'll get the benefit of the doubt on close calls. It's been that way since Napoleon was a cadet. Look no further than Alex Burrows for an example of a current player getting similar treatment. And it should be considered completely unacceptable. No respectable league would tolerate such blatant misconduct from their officials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 "I ended up getting him on eight minor penalties that season. I caught some heat for it from John Davidson on the Rangers' broadcasts, but the truth of the matter was this: I did NOT go out of my way to 'invent' penalties on Lindros -- or any player -- but I wasn't going to give that guy a break on anything borderline that I might have let slide with a player who had gained acceptability with me." That same section jumped out at me as it did other posters here. "Getting him"? That sounds extremely unprofessional. Your job as an official is to call the game as an objective, third party should - your ego and your personality don't matter - you need to check them in the locker room. The game is not about you. If Lindros is an unsavoury personality, that's really not for officials to judge imo. Call the game properly and be a professional regardless. The NHL unfortunately tolerates this mentality. Forget about LIndros' reputation - and btw, most of us would probably tell Stewart to g,f,h, in that context (and to shove his posters up his posterior) - but this is the kind of unprofessional, entitled, influence peddling crap that tarnishes the NHL's officiating credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Stewart appears a classic example of an arrogant bully, one who uses his position of authority to extract displays/traces of 'respect' from unfortunates, that are subjugated to his rule. Anecdote from decades back, comes to mind..He & Doug Wickenheiser(RIP) supposedly got into it, on-ice. Believe it started when Stewart was breaking up some rough stuff. PS challenged the guy to a scrap, post-game, & apparently kicked DW's butt. Also remember him spouting off(through media channels) against Burrows, during Auger-gate. I could see how the NHL would consider Stewart one of their better reffs. His brand of authority being reflected in their arbitrary decisions, with current matters like suspensions/DPS. Seems a very untrustworthy character. Not to mention, in plenty of tilts I watched him call, he was a downright lousy reff. No big fan of Lindros either..but sure don't envy him having a public dispute with one of this ilk. Might get messy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Here I thought that Lindros mellowed out as he got older. Guess not. He has no chance of winning that lawsuit if he filed it in the US. If he filed it solely in Canada then who knows... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger-Hearted Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Lindros was known as 'The Big E'......'The Big Ego'. His retirement was a great day for hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amish Rake Fighter Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Lindros has been trying to rehab his image and reinvent himself in the last few years but he will always be one of the biggest douchebags in NHL history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 The thing imo is this: "getting Lindros" involves penalizing a team - with 21 players +, millions of fans, etc. You shouldn't imo be using the influence you have over a game to act on your dislike for a particular player. Officials really need to be able to separate this from their game calling, because it seriously interferes with a far larger picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuckin_futz Posted February 26, 2015 Author Share Posted February 26, 2015 Legal Look: Lindros sues over defamation Eric Lindros, The Canadian Press As first reported by TSN Senior Correspondent Rick Westhead, former NHL forward Eric Lindros has filed a $250,000 lawsuit in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against former referee Paul Stewart, the Huffington Post and AOL, alleging that Stewart defamed him in an article he wrote back in July. In his article, Stewart wrote that Lindros used foul language when greeted by Stewart and demanded that Stewart just drop the [bleeping] puck. Stewart also recounted that before the game he brought a tube of posters depicting Marc Recchi and Lindros to be signed by the players for a charity auction. However, when Lindros learned the posters were for Stewart, he tore them up. In his lawsuit, Lindros contends that Stewart's article is "inaccurate, untrue, and defamatory" and that as a result, "reasonable and ordinary readers of the Article would regard Lindros with contempt or ridicule". In his Claim, Lindros also addressed the central issue in this lawsuit, namely, tearing up the posters: "The statement that Lindros refused to sign posters intended for a charity auction, and more shockingly, tore them up because they were solicited by Stewart, is false and makes Lindros out to be unfriendly, hostile, rude, insulting, vindictive, cruel, uncharitable and generally a despicable person." What is Defamation? Defamation refers to a false published statement that is likely to lower the reputation of a person in the eyes of reasonable people. The law protects your reputation against defamation. If you are defamed, you can sue for monetary damages as well as an order prohibiting the distribution and posting of the comments. What does Lindros have to prove? To get things rolling, Lindros only needs to establish (i) the comments were published, (ii) the comments refer to him, and (iii) the comments adversely affected his reputation. So published negative comments as a starting point may constitute defamation. Stewart's intent doesn't matter; all that matters is whether the comments were capable of diminishing the reputation of Lindros. Stewart's article was published on the Huffington Post website, the statements were clearly a reference to Lindros and Stewart's comments were negative. So Lindros should not have difficulty proving these three essential elements. Does that mean Stewart automatically loses? No. In a case of defamation, truth is a complete defence. So Stewart will argue that the comments were indeed true and that he did not manufacture the claims made in the article, particularly the key one, namely, that Lindros knowingly tore posters destined for a charitable auction. As per Stewart's article, he was told by the Flyers equipment manager Jim Evers that Lindros destroyed the posters. That means that Stewart may need to have Evers on board as a witness corroborating the story since Stewart never saw Lindros destroy the posters himself. The problem for Stewart, though, is that Evers has gone on the record saying the story is not true. If that's the case, Stewart may have some problems. Of course, Stewart could also try and find other witnesses who saw Lindros destroy the posters. The incident happened over 20 years ago and memories degrade over time. That may pose another challenge for Stewart. Does it matter that Stewart's article was published online? Yes, the mode and extent of a publication are important factors in assessing monetary damages for online defamation. Once you publish an article online, it immediately becomes available and accessible to so many more people as compared to an article that only appears in print. Indeed, Lindros alleges in his Claim that the article was disseminated and picked up by at least 47 other websites, and some of those websites led with unkind headlines about Lindros, which made things worse. The Ontario Court of Appeal acknowledged the unique nature of online publications due to its "interactive nature, its potential for being taken at face value, and its absolute and immediate ubiquity and accessibility". Is Lindros being a public figure relevant? Not in this case. In the U.S., a public figure must establish "actual malice" in order to successfully sue for defamation. Actual malice refers to showing that a defendant published comments despite knowing those comments were false or with reckless disregard as to their veracity. This higher standard of proof, however, is not imposed on public figures in Canada so Lindros doesn't have to worry about it. That might also be a reason Lindros elected to file his lawsuit in Ontario rather than in a U.S. court, where he could have also brought his lawsuit. How much money could Lindros be awarded if he wins? When it comes to monetary damages much turns on the evidence filed. That being said, generally defamation lawsuits like this one do not pay well and whatever damages are awarded can be offset by legal fees. It would not be unusual, for example, to see an award of $50,000 to $100,000 assuming Lindros was indeed successful. Why are Huffington Post and AOL also being sued by Lindros? In cases of defamation, it is not unusual to see the website that carried the story sued together with the owner of the website (if they are different). In this case, Huffington Post ran the story and AOL owns Huffington Post. For that reason, they were both sued. Their lawyers may be looking at the merit of the Claim and conducting their due diligence. If they conclude that Stewart did not tell the truth, they could print a retraction and an apology as part of a settlement with Lindros. Often times, that can satisfy a claimant and can also limit liability. However, that may still leave Stewart as the last defendant standing. As well, Stewart may have signed an agreement with Huffington Post whereby he agreed to indemnify or compensate Huffington Post and AOL for a monetary damage award and other monetary losses. Defamation actions can be tricky. You often warn clients that an action may well bring more attention to the negative comments and by extension ultimately be counterproductive. Before suing, legal counsel and the client engage in a cost-benefit analysis to determine if moving forward is a good idea. In the case of Lindros, this may not be about the money as much as it is standing up for himself. In all likelihood, he must feel relatively comfortable with the merits of his claim to move forward with a lawsuit. For Stewart, he will need to show that the statements he made were true. http://www.tsn.ca/legal-look-lindros-sues-over-defamation-1.216887 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 That proves my "who knows" statement about him suing in Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Good for Lindros for exposing the corruption in the NHL It was only a matter of time until someone resorted to legal action in order to get the refs to act like professionals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter.S-Kerouac Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Gotcha lols Gotcha again uhoh Gotcha.... wait hold up the box it that way. Ooooooooh gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I remember Stewart being one of the more palatable officials in the NHL. Oddly enough, perhaps in part because he sent Lindros to the box so much lol. But seriously, I remember Van Hellemond, Fraser and McCreary being the guys I dreaded to see doing games - Stewart struck me as one of the better ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.