[sureLoss]

Very good article on the Richards situation and how the legal arguments will play out:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmacr...mike-richards/

I suspect, however, the Kings will not argue it killed the deal because Richards was picked up on possession since that argument is essentially an automatic loss for the team.

Rather, expect the team to argue that it terminated the Richards deal because he failed to advise the team he had been arrested. The Kings were working on a trade that would see Richards shipped to another team, and at the eleventh hour, the Kings became aware of incident and had to pull the plug on the trade.

So the Kings may well look to distinguish between termination for being arrested for possession and termination for failing to advise of the arrest.

Will that argument fly? Probably not, but it’s worth a try if you’re the Kings. The flaw with that argument is that it assumes that there is a positive duty to advise a club of a drug related arrest. A player will not run excitedly to his team and announce he’s just been arrested. Of course that doesn’t happen. That’s the nature of the beast when it comes to drugs.

The collectively bargained NHL/NHLPA 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; it’s mandatory. For example, 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. 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.

The Drug Policy does not call for the termination of a player contract in the event of a drug related arrest or conviction. It calls for a lot less.

While the Kings may seek to distinguish its reasons for termination beyond Richards merely being arrested, the root of the incident,the NHLPA would argue, remains a drug related arrest (if indeed Richards was arrested), which is in turn governed by the collectively bargained and mandatory drug policy.

The NHLPA will likely frame the termination as a transparent and veiled attempt to avoid paying Richards what he is owed. Richards is no longer seen as a useful player by the Kings. His termination, the NHLPA will argue, is a desperate attempt to get out of a bad deal while creating as much cap space as possible.