And Richards made his bed by (allegedly) trying to illegally import Oxy into Canada.
The Kings do not occupy any moral high ground, but neither does Richards.
Don't care. The more the LA Kings suffer the better it is for the Calgary Flames, so I want the Kings to suffer the maximum they can suffer.
I mean from a human perspective I want Richards to get whatever help he needs to beat whatever demons he has of course... but eff the Kings. They're just the competition.
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.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
Yeah, in my youth I did this for a living a few times. It drove me to taking strong drugs. Well actually I was doing the drugs before this but why let the truth get in the way of a good story.
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
And I would suggest that from a legal perspective, this argument should ultimately be successful because this is obviously what happened.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Richards hasn't been charged with anything, let alone convicted.
I think the Kings jumped the gun here (see Lombardi's interview "teaching player right from wrong off the ice").
You can bet your boots the NHLPA is all over this. I think the likelihood is that a grievance is filed and the parties quietly settle.
Or...the NHLPA has the facts of the case, which have not been made public, and have decided not to publicize details unnecessarily. This is not about a few pills in his pocket without a prescription. Everyone involved needs to be very careful and do what is best for a player (and person) who may need help.
Everyone is keeping quiet because that is the best thing for this situation at the moment. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if there was never full disclosure on this. It's going to depend on what RCMP choose to make public, IMO.
It's not bad if you're in shape and if you aren't it will get you in shape quickly. It also paid well at the time but the bending over part of the job was hard on my lower back. There is something to be said for honest labour where you don't need to go to a gym on your time off.
And I would suggest that from a legal perspective, this argument should ultimately be successful because this is obviously what happened.
Seeing as how we are playing the "we are all legal experts" game, because of what happened last summer when he was given the second (third/fourth/fifth?) chance and he ####ed up AGAIN, and suppose he was already in a treatment program with the Kings support and got caught, then the Kings are allowed to void his contract. Richards issues date back his Philly days, where he was given a chance to cut out the partying but chose not too and was traded away. A leopard doesn't change his spots.
The telling thing should be no statement at all from the NHLPA. IF, and this is a big if, they are going to file a grievance on his behalf they would have already made a generic statement about a players innocence at this point. To come out with the "we are gathering information" line is funny, what is there to gather, either he didn't get busted for allegedly trying to transport drugs or he did.
I hope the Kings are cleared in all this and Richards is punted from the league.
Seeing as how we are playing the "we are all legal experts" game, because of what happened last summer when he was given the second (third/fourth/fifth?) chance and he ####ed up AGAIN, and suppose he was already in a treatment program with the Kings support and got caught, then the Kings are allowed to void his contract. Richards issues date back his Philly days, where he was given a chance to cut out the partying but chose not too and was traded away. A leopard doesn't change his spots.
The telling thing should be no statement at all from the NHLPA. IF, and this is a big if, they are going to file a grievance on his behalf they would have already made a generic statement about a players innocence at this point. To come out with the "we are gathering information" line is funny, what is there to gather, either he didn't get busted for allegedly trying to transport drugs or he did.
I hope the Kings are cleared in all this and Richards is punted from the league.
Not sure where you got this information, but according to the article I linked teams do not have the right to terminate a player's contract because he failed a rehab program multiple times.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
Seeing as how we are playing the "we are all legal experts" game, because of what happened last summer when he was given the second (third/fourth/fifth?) chance and he ####ed up AGAIN, and suppose he was already in a treatment program with the Kings support and got caught, then the Kings are allowed to void his contract. Richards issues date back his Philly days, where he was given a chance to cut out the partying but chose not too and was traded away. A leopard doesn't change his spots.
The telling thing should be no statement at all from the NHLPA. IF, and this is a big if, they are going to file a grievance on his behalf they would have already made a generic statement about a players innocence at this point. To come out with the "we are gathering information" line is funny, what is there to gather, either he didn't get busted for allegedly trying to transport drugs or he did.
I hope the Kings are cleared in all this and Richards is punted from the league.
Pretty sure the guy you responded to is actually a lawyer
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
I am not a lawyer but don't need to be one to see the Kings motivation here. I would imagine the Richards camp would point to lack of a precedent for termination of a contract.
In my workplace, top performers are often given a second chance. I have some sympathy for the Kings position that they don't have to treat every player the same if they were arrested. They could argue this guy has been screwing up for a while and they are done giving him chances.
But I guess in the end, this is more about contracts than employment law. As a Flames fan it burns me that they could get out from under a cap killer contract.
Could you imagine if Flames had taken on this guys contract?? Treliving would be scrambling to make a deal to get under this years cap and next year would be a disaster. I suppose if rumors were true and Flames were asking for Toffoli then Frolik would not have been signed.
Kings better have more than possession on Richards! No way they get out of that contract like this.
Not trying to start rumors, and I have no facts, but if he had been trafficking drugs to teammates or charged with trafficking how would this effect things?
Possession is a joke until it becomes a trafficking charge. Then its a big deal!
I hope there's a strong argument made about Voynov, a now convicted wife beater, who's still suspended with pay compared to trying to stop paying Richards, someone who's simply under investigation and has not even had his day in court yet.
Lombardi was quite honest and up front with the Richards situation as recent as the draft in June with fellow GMs. Mainly Treliving and Chia in Edmonton.
Imagine we traded for this guy when the Kings GM knew all about his legal issues. I can imagine the backlash on here, I am sure this trade would have been reversed or something by the NHL if they found the Kings knew about his situation and didn't share it.
"[Lombardi] came right over to me," Oilers general manager Peter Chiarelli confirmed to ESPN.com. "He pulled me aside and said, 'Hey, Pete, this is going to come out. I had no idea. This is important you know so that talks [don't go any] further.'"
Lombardi did the same with Flames GM Brad Treliving on the draft floor, Treliving confirmed.
I know this is an older article, so my apologies for posting if it already has been.
I also found it interesting that they still have a cap hit from his cancelled contract:
Quote:
The team, meanwhile, won't have to pay Richards, but will incur a $1.32 million cap hit for the next five years as part of a cap recapture penalty (not dissimilar to when a player on a contract deemed to circumvent the salary cap retires). The timing of all of this is certainly curious, given the proximity to free agency opening.
Anyway, I agree that the Kings are in fact just trying to get rid of a bad contract instead of following the NHL's drug policy, ie getting him help and suspending him with pay based on what we have heard so far. Maybe there is other evidence that we don't know about and the Kings have a case. So far, this doesn't seem likely.
What date was the contract cancelled and when is the 60 days up? I think this topic is only going to get hotter!
__________________
"You're worried about the team not having enough heart. I'm worried about the team not having enough brains." HFOil fan, August 12th, 2020. E=NG
NHLPA has until roughly August 29 to file a grievance. He expects the union to do so, and he expects the Kings won't argue the termination was justified by the arrest, but by the argument that Richards failed to notify the team of the arrest - the consequence of which was that they had to abandon their trade efforts.
Lombardi was quite honest and up front with the Richards situation as recent as the draft in June with fellow GMs. Mainly Treliving and Chia in Edmonton.
Imagine we traded for this guy when the Kings GM knew all about his legal issues. I can imagine the backlash on here, I am sure this trade would have been reversed or something by the NHL if they found the Kings knew about his situation and didn't share it.
I know this is an older article, so my apologies for posting if it already has been.
I also found it interesting that they still have a cap hit from his cancelled contract:
Anyway, I agree that the Kings are in fact just trying to get rid of a bad contract instead of following the NHL's drug policy, ie getting him help and suspending him with pay based on what we have heard so far. Maybe there is other evidence that we don't know about and the Kings have a case. So far, this doesn't seem likely.
What date was the contract cancelled and when is the 60 days up? I think this topic is only going to get hotter!
Hypothetically, how many years should a player be in the substance abuse program before a team draws a conclusion that the player has not chosen to follow through with rehab?
Macramalla touches on that - it's not the Kings' call. The substance abuse program is collectively bargained, and the Kings have to follow the terms of it. Which is why they are likely to go the failure to disclose route.
