TSN: Richards charged with Illegal Possession of a Controlled Substance

[Canuck Surfer]

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.

Im

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?

To a degree > I am of the opinion that the teams should set themselves up to be allowed to terminate contracts for particular events.

I am not a lawyer, and its hard to quantify how you would stipulate this in a contract. And what exactly is legitimate. But...

- Starting on the more fundamental side I would include minimum fitness standards. How many athletes over history have showed up to training camp fat & out of shape? Keith Tkatchuk was famous for being near 250 lbs coming in off the lockout. Having spent the off season drinking beer at the cottage? It sounds a dumb in comparison to say drugs. And Mike Richards. But think about it? Richards signs a $68 mill contract. Then suddenly Philly wants to unload him among raps that he was a sadistic partier. 6 or 7 years on & his play has been on a steady decline. My guess is his activities significantly impacted his ability to train and show up for work in game shape. At the amount of money guys command, standards could be a key to accountability.

- In Australia; key Aussie Rules Football stars Bredan Fevola & Ben Cousins, both elite players, were sacked by their teams. In Cousins case for conduct bringing the team into ''disrepute'' if I remember the term used correctly. He was a crystal meth addict. Fevola was a terminal drunk. Who made a donkey of himself at team and league functions. Both were part of larger team culture issues, but figureheads. Cousins was sacked in spite of not hitting any three strike rule infractions. But had been worked with over a period of a few years. Clearly the team had been keeping records of behavioural infractions and incidents; the sacking was not contested. In rugby, a fan uploaded a smart phone vid of a player weeing into his own face, drinking it I think, at a nightclub communal urinal. And had been in trouble for brawling and pissing on buildings in the past. He was sacked in the public image outcry.

Clearly there are ways.

A team like LA, which was underperforming surfaces with more than one guy being arrested this past summer. It does not take much to put two & two together. The odds are there were four, or eight or 12 guys in a lifestyle group. Other pretty good players, who also had consistency issues, have been allowed to walk UFA. Maybe I am speculating there? They seem on a purge to clean out their dressing room. But LA missed the play off's. Possibly tens of millions of dollars in profits. When issues start surfacing I personally believe teams should have built protection mechanisms into their contracts.

Also here in Australia mining giant BHP has a zero tolerance policy for alcohol or drugs in a persons system. Why couldn't the NHL? I know your thinking that's different. They are handling heavy machinery in dangerous circumstances. This is in their office building in the central business district! Built into the contract is a right to test for alcohol at any time. I believe drugs as well. Blow over 0.0 and u can be escorted out of the building. Progressive discipline then applies and it takes precious few strikes to have your contract terminated.

How many coaches have caught flack for calling a 7:30 am training session? To have their team show up hung over on the road. Number one coach killer. Think about it...

[Fanuck]

The termination happened WAY too fast and before facts could have been gathered for any expert to have advised it.

Speculation on my part I admit, but it is the swiftness of the termination imo that tells me the Kings did in fact have extensive legal consultation completed beforehand and had a plan of action (termination as we found out) prepared; therefore, with their attorneys advice they cut him instantly.

Furthermore, if they in fact expected this coming from Richards in some fashion or other, and sought legal advice before another incident occurred, that pretty much seals the speculation that this is an ongoing problem with this player.

Again, speculation on my part admittedly.

[elvis15]

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.

Exactly, the difference in this discussion between UFA and pending UFA are negligible.

In the US, current drug usage is treated differently under employment law. ...

The CBA governs this over and above employment law, and the CBA has a set structure for substance abuse.

[gocanucks1916]

If he's convicted, won't he face travel restrictions that would prevent him playing a significant chunk of games? That might be the argument that LA makes: if he doesn't travel with the team, then he's breaching his contract...

[elvis15]

Depends on what they convict him of, and if there ever was something to compare from this case to Stoll's it's how they'd often go for a sentence that wouldn't cause issues with their travel and could still allow them to play in the NHL (with Stoll now signed by the Rangers).

[HC20.0]

Depends on what they convict him of, and if there ever was something to compare from this case to Stoll's it's how they'd often go for a sentence that wouldn't cause issues with their travel and could still allow them to play in the NHL (with Stoll now signed by the Rangers).

Well Ryan Malone was busted for coke too, but still signed with the Rangers. Richards is different, he was busted at the border here, he might be barred from Canada, which prevents him from playing.

[dank.sinatra]

If he has a problem with Oxy that is "fair" reason to terminate his contract. That $&!# is impossible to get off. No way you can play hockey going through opiate withdrawals. No way you could play high on Oxy for that matter either. Sounds like Richards has a real problem. From a performance affecting view this is much more damaging than ripping some coke or popping m in the summer. I hope Richards gets the help he needs if he has a real problem here.

[The Bookie]

Well Ryan Malone was busted for coke too, but still signed with the Rangers. Richards is different, he was busted at the border here, he might be barred from Canada, which prevents him from playing.

But it's just a possession charge, right? Unless I missed something ... there's two threads on cdc about this and I was just reading the reddit thread so I'm a little turned around, but I didn't see any mention of trafficking or intent to distribute. Which also suggests it wasn't a large amount. I don't think that would automatically bar him from crossing, just bring higher scrutiny. Customs seems to treat things like DUIs more seriously oddly enough, maybe because you're much more likely to cause harm ripping around on a legal drug than an illegal one in your pocket.

Actually, when I type it out like that, it makes perfect sense.

If he has a problem with Oxy that is "fair" reason to terminate his contract. That crap is impossible to get off. No way you can play hockey going through opiate withdrawals. No way you could play high on Oxy for that matter either. Sounds like Richards has a real problem. From a performance affecting view this is much more damaging than ripping some coke or popping m in the summer. I hope Richards gets the help he needs if he has a real problem here.

I do too, but it's a slippery slope if a team can terminate a contract because the player became addicted to something their doctors can prescribe.

I don't know, I'm staying neutral for now. Feels like there's still some big piece of the puzzle yet to be revealed.

[GB5]

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

I wouldn't assume this. It happened so fast that on the surface it appeared to be an opportunistic knee jerk reaction.

Regardless, he has only been charged but not convicted, last I heard, one is still innocent until proven guilty, except for in the courts of public opinion that is.

[dank.sinatra]

But it's just a possession charge, right? Unless I missed something ... there's two threads on cdc about this and I was just reading the reddit thread so I'm a little turned around, but I didn't see any mention of trafficking or intent to distribute. Which also suggests it wasn't a large amount. I don't think that would automatically bar him from crossing, just bring higher scrutiny. Customs seems to treat things like DUIs more seriously oddly enough, maybe because you're much more likely to cause harm ripping around on a legal drug than an illegal one in your pocket.

Actually, when I type it out like that, it makes perfect sense.

I do too, but it's a slippery slope if a team can terminate a contract because the player became addicted to something their doctors can prescribe.

I don't know, I'm staying neutral for now. Feels like there's still some big piece of the puzzle yet to be revealed.

You're right, I already regret saying that's fair reason to terminate his contract. If that is actually the main reason for the termination the Kings should've provided rehabilitation services until he was able to play again.

[TheRussianRocket.]

This is all so stupid and bizarre. It's clear as can be Kings are doing this to get out of the horrible contract through a glaring loophole.

Case in point, Voynov has been charged and yet they've still kept him. Why? He's their best dman outside of Doughty / effective and a quality player. Richards has been charged and all of a sudden they want to cut ties with him? And he would magically solve their cap issues while he's been a horrible player for them the past couple years.

...doesn't take a rocket science to figure this one out. Make them keep Richards and suffer for not buying him out when they had the chance. If not, let them suffer it through a trade at least if they find a suitor.

[etsen3]

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).

Thanks for the info. However, would they have done the same thing if this were Richards 6 years ago? He had the reputation of a partier back then, but they were willing to acquire him back then.

[falcon45ca]

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.

No, Voynov pleaded no contest, which is very different from pleading guilty.

[Mackcanuck]

Here is some info which could clear some things up.

http://www.tsn.ca/talent/richards-case-against-kings-after-being-charged-1.353065

Richards case against Kings after being charged

TSN Senior Correspondent Rick Westhead has reported that former Los Angeles Kings forward Mike Richards has been charged with the unlawful possession of a controlled substance.

Richards was arrested when Canadian border guards found "some pills in a single bottle" during a random search of his car. According to Westhead's breaking report, it was small quantity intended for the hockey player's personal use.

That means Richards is looking at a simple possession charge rather than a charge for possession for the purpose of trafficking, which is a lot more serious. A trafficking charge means that a person was in possession of drugs for the purpose of selling or distributing. Richards is facing up to six months in prison and/or a $1,000 fine. Given the small amount, Richards is not going to jail assuming he's guilty of the offence (he may not be). Worst case scenario for Richards may include a fine and community service.

The issue being raised now is whether being charged will hurt Richards' likelihood of success in connection with his grievance against the Kings for unlawfully terminating his contract.

The short answer is no. Before criminal charges were filed against Richards, he stood a good chance of having an arbitrator overturn the termination of his contract. While Richards has now been criminally charged, nothing has changed as far as his chances of success.

The Kings Terminated Richards' Contract

Earlier this summer, the Kings terminated the contract of the forward after the team learned he had been arrested for the unlawful possession of a controlled substance. Richards had five years and $22 million remaining on his deal, which translated to a $5.75 million cap hit over each of the next five years.

Initially, the Kings had decided to buy out Richards. That would have resulted in a fluctuating cap hit until 2024-25, peaking in 2018 and 2019 at $4.2 million.

However, by terminating his deal, the Kings would enjoy substantial cap relief as the team would only be on the hook for a cap recapture penalty of $1.32 million over each of the next five years. And of course, the team won't have to pay Richards two-thirds of his salary, which amounts to $14.5 million.

Kings facing A Challenging Case

Why the uphill battle for the Kings?

The reason is the NHL/NHLPA Substance Abuse and Behavioral Health Program Policy.

This Drug Policy sets out specific drug treatment protocols that must be followed in the case of an arrest or conviction related to drugs. Since it was collectively bargained between the Union and the NHL, adhering to the Drug Policy is not optional for teams; rather, it's mandatory. A team cannot simply elect to ignore the collectively bargained terms for the sake of convenience. The whole idea behind the Drug Policy is to get players the help they need. The focus of the Drug Policy is ultimately rehabilitative and not punitive.

The Drug Policy provides that any player arrested on drug charges is required to submit to a substance abuse evaluation and other treatment deemed appropriate by doctors. If the doctors determine that treatment is required, the player will be placed into Stage 1 of the alcohol or drug program. Stage 1 calls for "inpatient treatment," although the player continues to get paid.

If a player is convicted of a controlled substance offense (including under a plea arrangement), he is placed into Stage 2 of the drug program. As part of Stage 2, the player is suspended without pay during his treatment and can be reinstated by the league should doctors recommend it.

The most severe discipline called for under the Drug Policy for repeated rehab failures is a one-year suspension without pay with reinstatement at the discretion of the league.

So the Drug Policy does not call for the termination of a player's contract in the event of an arrest or conviction related to drugs. It calls for a lot less.

This all means that if a player is picked up on a drug charge, the collectively bargained Drug Policy is triggered together with its treatment protocols.

Richards Never Told Us He Was Arrested

The Kings may not argue it terminated the deal because Richards was arrested on possession since the Drug Policy clearly governs these types of cases. The Kings, however, may take the position that the team terminated Richards' deal because he failed to advise the team he had been arrested.

So it is possible that the Kings may seek to distinguish between (i) termination for being arrested for possession, and (ii) termination for failing to advise of the arrest.

Will that argument fly? It will be a tough one since it would mean concluding the Drug Policy does not apply. That being said, if you're the Kings, it's worth a shot.

NHLPA Argument

The NHLPA will likely frame Richards' termination as a transparent attempt to create cap room for a team desperately in need of it. Richards is no longer seen as a useful player by the Kings and terminating his deal helps the team get that much needed cap relief.

From the NHLPA's standpoint, it could not allow this precedent to go unchallenged. If the termination were allowed to stand, it could undermine the strength of guaranteed contracts, which in turn could adversely impact the rights of players. So this is a very important case for all NHL hockey players and not just Richards.

Gary Bettman Will Not Be The Arbitrator

Paragraph 17.5 calls for an impartial arbitrator, which means Commissioner Gary Bettman will not hear this case.

Timing

A grievance can take over two months to get resolved. That would take Richards into the regular season without a resolution. For that reason, the NHLPA has invoked Article 17.17 of the CBA and requested an expedited hearing to trim the timeline.

So we should know soon enough if the termination of Richards' contract will stand.

[GB5]

Kings facing A Challenging Case

Why the uphill battle for the Kings?

The reason is the NHL/NHLPA Substance Abuse and Behavioral Health Program Policy.

This Drug Policy sets out specific drug treatment protocols that must be followed in the case of an arrest or conviction related to drugs. Since it was collectively bargained between the Union and the NHL, adhering to the Drug Policy is not optional for teams; rather, it's mandatory. A team cannot simply elect to ignore the collectively bargained terms for the sake of convenience. The whole idea behind the Drug Policy is to get players the help they need. The focus of the Drug Policy is ultimately rehabilitative and not punitive.

The Drug Policy provides that any player arrested on drug charges is required to submit to a substance abuse evaluation and other treatment deemed appropriate by doctors. If the doctors determine that treatment is required, the player will be placed into Stage 1 of the alcohol or drug program. Stage 1 calls for "inpatient treatment," although the player continues to get paid.

The timing and circumstances with Richards the previous year are what makes this all too suspicious.

[canuktravella]

guys a pill popper i sure wouldnt want him on my team what a waste of talent, but i dont think the kings can void his contract was it not pescribed to him by a doc? or ?? i hope kings get screwed over

[Mackcanuck]

Drug Charges stayed on Richards, 

 

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sports/hockey/nhl/nhls-mike-richards-drug-possession-charge-stayed-369979641.html

[Monty]

4 hours ago, Mackcanuck said:

Drug Charges stayed on Richards, 

 

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sports/hockey/nhl/nhls-mike-richards-drug-possession-charge-stayed-369979641.html

Just so people know, this means the Drug Charges have been dropped.

 

More importantly, this is going to be a nightmare for the NHL behind the scenes. 

 

For starters, the Los Angeles Kings received a boatload of cap relief, as their explanation for terminating his contract was due to breach of contract, which was upheld. Now, with the Drug Charges stayed, this means that the Kings received an enormous amount of cap relief for a breach of contract that did not occur. That's the first issue.

 

Secondly, which is in response to the first issue, 29 other owners and GMs in the league are going to have a field day with this. With the Drug Charges stayed and cap relief given for something that did not occur, 29 teams will now view this as "LA received relief where they should not have. Where is our teams relief?"

 

Thirdly, Mike Richards, in the eyes of the law, did nothing wrong. Not only did he do nothing wrong, but also nothing wrong in terms of breach of his contract. Therefore, Richards (rightly so) will most definitely go after money that is rightly owed to him. Anissue that the NHLPA will have a field day with.

 

At the end of the day, this is going to be a nightmare for the NHL behind the scenes.

 

EDIT: I love how I finish my post exactly how it started  

[VanGnome]

17 hours ago, Monty said:

Just so people know, this means the Drug Charges have been dropped.

 

More importantly, this is going to be a nightmare for the NHL behind the scenes. 

 

For starters, the Los Angeles Kings received a boatload of cap relief, as their explanation for terminating his contract was due to breach of contract, which was upheld. Now, with the Drug Charges stayed, this means that the Kings received an enormous amount of cap relief for a breach of contract that did not occur. That's the first issue.

 

Secondly, which is in response to the first issue, 29 other owners and GMs in the league are going to have a field day with this. With the Drug Charges stayed and cap relief given for something that did not occur, 29 teams will now view this as "LA received relief where they should not have. Where is our teams relief?"

 

Thirdly, Mike Richards, in the eyes of the law, did nothing wrong. Not only did he do nothing wrong, but also nothing wrong in terms of breach of his contract. Therefore, Richards (rightly so) will most definitely go after money that is rightly owed to him. Anissue that the NHLPA will have a field day with.

 

At the end of the day, this is going to be a nightmare for the NHL behind the scenes.

 

EDIT: I love how I finish my post exactly how it started  

Nothing will likely happen to LA for this debacle, however as usual future teams will get screwed when/if a similar case comes up. NHL is quickly becoming bush league.

Moreover I think that LA needs to be looked at from an organizational point of view, their ownership/management appear to be as corrupt as they come

[Ghostsof1915]

So once again it's not a real level playing field when one team gets away with what it wants, and others get punished for trying to get through a loophole.