thejazz97 Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Former Los Angeles Kings forward Mike Richards has been charged with illegal possession of a controlled substance, the RCMP announced Thursday morning. Richards was charged on Aug. 25, two sources told TSN. He has not yet entered a plea. Richards has a court hearing on Sept. 10. Richards was arrested on June 17 in Emerson, MB at about 2pm, RCMP constable Paul Human told TSN. Canadian border guards found “some pills in a single bottle” during a random search of Richards’ car and he was arrested by RCMP, a source told TSN. “It was clearly a small quantity intended for his personal use,” the source told TSN. http://www.tsn.ca/richards-charged-with-illegal-possession-of-a-controlled-substance-1.351639 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Day Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Oxy's a helluva drug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 LA is so going to lose this arbitration. Look at all the players in all the pro sports and all the criminal charges they have faced. Having a few painkillers is nowhere close to the worst of that list. It isn't even the worst on LA's list THIS year! We have not seen other players facing contract termination. If that is all they have, then there is little chance it will be considered a material breach of contract and the PA will be able to successfully argue it is the team trying a very transparent ploy to get out from under a contract they didn't like anymore for performance reasons. You aren't allowed to terminate a contract for performance reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Being charged is more than we thought he might be by this point, but to find out he wasn't carting across a whole year's worth of Oxy? C'mon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etsen3 Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Well of all people it would be Richards. Not really shocking at all. Personally I think most drugs should be decriminalized for possession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanuck Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 On the surface, it looks like the NHLPA has a case considering other substance abuse and personal conduct infractions in the NHL and other pro sports rarely go directly to termination (NFL possibly the lone exception). That said, you must assume LA management didn't take the decision without extensive legal consultation considering the seriousness of the consequences if their decision is nullified. I'm thinking LA must have more than just this incident on record against Richards thereby justifying their actions. There's more to this than this isolated incident that's for sure and the outcome will undoubtedly have a ripple effect throughout the league. Imagine GMs around the league terminating contracts for this and that due to conduct issues? How many dead-weight contracts are floating around the league right now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etsen3 Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 LA is so going to lose this arbitration. Look at all the players in all the pro sports and all the criminal charges they have faced. Having a few painkillers is nowhere close to the worst of that list. It isn't even the worst on LA's list THIS year! We have not seen other players facing contract termination. If that is all they have, then there is little chance it will be considered a material breach of contract and the PA will be able to successfully argue it is the team trying a very transparent ploy to get out from under a contract they didn't like anymore for performance reasons. You aren't allowed to terminate a contract for performance reasons. Stoll did the same thing and didn't have his contract terminated. Slava Voynov pleaded guilty to something much worse and didn't have his contract terminated. Pretty obvious that LA is just using this to get out of his contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 So what. LA should be responsible for his cap regardless. This is bull$&!#. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter.S-Kerouac Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Stoll did the same thing and didn't have his contract terminated. Slava Voynov pleaded guilty to something much worse and didn't have his contract terminated. Pretty obvious that LA is just using this to get out of his contract. Voyonov pleaded no contest which is a bit different. To split hairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Stoll did the same thing and didn't have his contract terminated. Slava Voynov pleaded guilty to something much worse and didn't have his contract terminated. Pretty obvious that LA is just using this to get out of his contract. Stoll was a UFA and you can't terminate a UFA's contract. Stop using him as a comparison. Voyanov is much more understandable but went through the full investigation with the Kings aware the whole time of what was happening. The point that has been mentioned multiple times in the Richards case is that the Kings will likely argue that Richards failed to inform them (which later caused issues in trade negotiations). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Colt 45s Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Voyonov pleaded no contest which is a bit different. To split hairs. In the US, current drug usage is treated differently under employment law. You can be immediately terminated, regardless of having an employment contract in place, for current drug use. When they Kings found out he was detained, they terminated the contract. It was within their rights to do that. However, there is another scenario that could have happened. Under the Americans with Disability Act, if Richards had come to the team beforehand and said he was having problems with drugs, his drug use would have been considered as a disability, if he was also seeking treatment. In this case, he was caught crossing the border with an illegal prescription so this relief does not apply. The issue with Voyonov is completely different, under employment and contract law. While domestic violence is deplorable and disgusting, his arrest and conviction was not grounds for immediate termination. That is why he is under league investigation, and in limbo until the league determines the extra penalty. I think he will be playing for the Kings at some point in the future. His argument was that he was convicted, went to jail, and served his time. Heck, there has been other NHLers who have had criminal records that were still allowed to play--Bertuzzi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Stammer- Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 The Kings are like the 49ers of the NHL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted August 27, 2015 Author Share Posted August 27, 2015 The Kings are like the 49ers of the NHL Something's in the water down in California Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Something's in the water down in California What water? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baer. Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 What water? The Pacific ocean is full of nasty stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Iirc Stoll was under contract at the time, but that conract expired very shortly after. I believe he was "busted" before the July 1 deadline. I maybe wrong, it has been some time since I was and i'm due. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdubuya Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 it took this long to get a charge on a small personal amount? gimme a break rcmp. I don't see this going too far for the Kings or the cops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 That said, you must assume LA management didn't take the decision without extensive legal consultation considering the seriousness of the consequences if their decision is nullified. I'm thinking LA must have more than just this incident on record against Richards thereby justifying their actions. Not necessarily. I know from firsthand knowledge that people often ignore legal and professional advice in the world of labour relations. The termination happened WAY too fast and before facts could have been gathered for any expert to have advised it. Lots of people try to do a hail mary pass in court hoping that a decision goes their way. Also, they probably think they are in a no-lose situation. Probably worst case is that the league lets them turn it into a regular buyout and they are no worse off than they would have been. They can also be forced to follow the CBA and put him into a rehab program... I know it is paid suspension, but I don't know if it counts against the cap or whether he would be considered on LTIR. There is a "slight" possibility that the league says that LA missed the buyout window and have to keep the contract and player on their books for the year. That is the only case where LA is worse off than they would have been with this gamble. Stoll was a UFA and you can't terminate a UFA's contract. Stop using him as a comparison. That isn't true, he was GOING to be a UFA. They could have terminated his contract as soon as they heard about the issue, he wouldn't have been out pay or missed games... but it would have shown that they consider that kind of behaviour as a material breach and that would make a slightly stronger case before an arbitrator for the Richards thing. I can't see LA winning this in any regard because they didn't follow the set out rules in the collective agreement. Anything "can" happen in front of an arbitrator, but this is a pretty low percentage gamble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyhee Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Iirc Stoll was under contract at the time, but that conract expired very shortly after. I believe he was "busted" before the July 1 deadline. I maybe wrong, it has been some time since I was and i'm due. Stoll was under contract, but the Kings' season had ended. There was no reason to terminate his contract, which expired a little under a month and a half later. He'd already earned his last paycheque under that contract, pay be being based on days in the lineup during the season. Obviously the situation is different from that of Richards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeslerPlaysLikeACanadian Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 That said, you must assume LA management didn't take the decision without extensive legal consultation considering the seriousness of the consequences if their decision is nullified. I thinking that either; a) they did have advice and there are facts we aren't aware of, b ) they were pissed off and not thinking (not hard for me to imagine, with hockey people), c) they did it for cap flexibility, knowing that it would not stand up, but also assuming that the punishment would be minimal (very easy to imagine). I wonder if there is also an assumption that some kind of settlement would be less than a buyout, or at least not carry a cap hit. And I wonder if the NHLPA would refuse that because of the precedent. Also, if he is convicted he has to go to detox, and if he didn't, they could terminate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.