Confirmed with Link: Coyotes forfeit 2020 2nd round pick and a 2021 1st round pick for violating league’s combine testing

[GhostofTommyBolin]

Then what is stopping Bettman, Dreger, or anyone else from saying:

"We found that 26 players reported violations. Here are the violations that the Coyotes are accused of: testing body fat (22 out of 26 players), measuring height/weight (26 out of 26), stretching/flexibility (20 out of 26), etc."

There's nothing stopping them; they don't have any obligation to get specific. Why does it matter? They cheated and got punished. It doesn't matter if they made Player X do box jumps and Player Y stand there in shorts. I get that you're bent out of shape, but the specifics are irrelevant. They cheated, admitted it, and were punished. It's your team, so of course you're mad. If it was the Kings or Ducks, etc., you'd be saying they should have been fined $250k per violation on top of losing the draft picks.

 

[Heldig]

It seems more reasonable to force the Coyotes to fire Chayka, Sullivan, Goldberg and Hofford. And then suspend those individuals.

But what happened happened and the only way forward is to trade all of our over 25 players for draft picks and try again.

Kind of like an expansion franchise but with a few signed regulars.

 

[Heldig]

You want to bring in a new scouting staff less than 6 weeks prior to the draft?

The Coyotes have no picks so I am not sure it really matters.

 

[Mosby]

Fair point. Don’t have an argument there haha

I'd still fire Hofford for his haircut alone.

Dude looks like such a dink.

 

[TheLegend]

I'd still fire Hofford for his haircut alone.

Dude looks like such a dink.

 

[BUX7PHX]

There's nothing stopping them; they don't have any obligation to get specific. Why does it matter? They cheated and got punished. It doesn't matter if they made Player X do box jumps and Player Y stand there in shorts. I get that you're bent out of shape, but the specifics are irrelevant. They cheated, admitted it, and were punished. It's your team, so of course you're mad. If it was the Kings or Ducks, etc., you'd be saying they should have been fined $250k per violation on top of losing the draft picks.

I don't see any case being made regarding that. If someone cheats, I think it is very relevant to know how that was done. For one reason, it is to see where flaws in the current system are at, and it helps define what type of cheating was done.

As far as explaining what was done, I absolutely disagree with why does it matter. Depending on what we know about this testing (which doesn't sound like a lot has been revealed), it absolutely could create the question about if this reduction in picks fit the crime.

Going to what you said, if player Y is standing there in shorts, then please explain what that person did to amount to physical testing. I understand that you are creating the assumption that player Y was also tested, but the only thing that any has heard is that the players were interviewed wearing shorts and a shirt. If there is more than that, then say what it was.

You sound like you are trying to create a justification of this, when no one has said what actually took place. Behind closed doors, Trump allegedly had a "perfect" call. Behind closed doors, we allegedly tested prospects. But unlike the Trump info, no one has validated specifically what testing was done. Things can be presented in a way to hide what happened, just like Chayka created a story that his interview had nothing to do with a hockey team.

This sounds exactly like that. When you look back at cheating scandals across sports, this one has pretty harsh penalties, but the information and background to this falls flat. It seems more like the NHL wants to sweep this under the rug quick, partially because the gray area that this likely stemmed from made the NHL look foolish, because the NHL did not plan for that rule to be exploited the way it was. If it isn't stated as a rule, then it opens the door for interpretation. It is like the horse collar tackle in football. The rule was exploited because it also created a higher risk of injury for this tackle. But until it happened at such a high level, no one really looked into it. That required an additional change to the rule. If there isna gray area that was exploited, then the NHL would also be best to change the rule so that interpretation is not variable any longer.

 

[Jamieh]

I don't see any case being made regarding that. If someone cheats, I think it is very relevant to know how that was done. For one reason, it is to see where flaws in the current system are at, and it helps define what type of cheating was done.

As far as explaining what was done, I absolutely disagree with why does it matter. Depending on what we know about this testing (which doesn't sound like a lot has been revealed), it absolutely could create the question about if this reduction in picks fit the crime.

Going to what you said, if player Y is standing there in shorts, then please explain what that person did to amount to physical testing. I understand that you are creating the assumption that player Y was also tested, but the only thing that any has heard is that the players were interviewed wearing shorts and a shirt. If there is more than that, then say what it was.

You sound like you are trying to create a justification of this, when no one has said what actually took place. Behind closed doors, Trump allegedly had a "perfect" call. Behind closed doors, we allegedly tested prospects. But unlike the Trump info, no one has validated specifically what testing was done. Things can be presented in a way to hide what happened, just like Chayka created a story that his interview had nothing to do with a hockey team.

This sounds exactly like that. When you look back at cheating scandals across sports, this one has pretty harsh penalties, but the information and background to this falls flat. It seems more like the NHL wants to sweep this under the rug quick, partially because the gray area that this likely stemmed from made the NHL look foolish, because the NHL did not plan for that rule to be exploited the way it was. If it isn't stated as a rule, then it opens the door for interpretation. It is like the horse collar tackle in football. The rule was exploited because it also created a higher risk of injury for this tackle. But until it happened at such a high level, no one really looked into it. That required an additional change to the rule. If there isna gray area that was exploited, then the NHL would also be best to change the rule so that interpretation is not variable any longer.

The more you write about someone standing there in shortsthe sillier it looks. Players were physically tested, not looked at. The NHL feels no need to tell you exactly how and you have no right to that info. Just accept that the Coyotes cheated and have been punished. They admitted as much.

 

[Jakey53]

FWIW.....

Someone in BoH posted that Friedman was on the air this morning and suggested the Coyotes might appeal this decision based on the technicality that the BOG has never ratified the guidelines for the testing of eligible draftees.

I think we'd have as much success as we had getting the Raffi Torres' suspension reduced but something to watch for.

No sure how you can appeal it if you already pleaded guilty.

 

[Jamieh]

No sure how you can appeal it if you already pleaded guilty.

Hard to believe the Coyotes could make themselves look even dumber.

 

[TheLegend]

Not sure they would do it at all but Friedman put it out there.

 

[_Del_]

No sure how you can appeal it if you already pleaded guilty.

You can appeal a sentence if it's unduly harsh without appealing your plea. I don't imagine this is any different, really. "Yeah, we did it, but this seems severe in light of the circumstances."

 

[BUX7PHX]

The more you write about someone standing there in shortsthe sillier it looks. Players were physically tested, not looked at. The NHL feels no need to tell you exactly how and you have no right to that info. Just accept that the Coyotes cheated and have been punished. They admitted as much.

Then there should be a clear statement as to what the testing consisted of, etc.

Maybe a better way to state this is to use the logic that someone else used, which was, "Why does it matter? They cheated."

Well, if at some point in time, you ever find yourself accused of something (like say, shooting someone in self-defense), your attorney doesn't say, "Why does it matter? You shot someone."

Yes, it happened, but wouldn't we like the whole story of what took place? We know the whole short and short thing from Dec, when this first came out. I have not heard more beyond that of what was specifically tested. That is my only question

 

[Jakey53]

You can appeal a sentence if it's unduly harsh without appealing your plea. I don't imagine this is any different, really. "Yeah, we did it, but this seems severe in light of the circumstances."

I understand but you are following NHL guidelines not the law of the land. It's a franchise and their guidelines are all legal, but maybe it's the grey area that Meruelo is looking at. If true, all Meruelo is doing is pissing against the wind.

 

[Jamieh]

Then there should be a clear statement as to what the testing consisted of, etc.

Maybe a better way to state this is to use the logic that someone else used, which was, "Why does it matter? They cheated."

Well, if at some point in time, you ever find yourself accused of something (like say, shooting someone in self-defense), your attorney doesn't say, "Why does it matter? You shot someone."

Yes, it happened, but wouldn't we like the whole story of what took place? We know the whole short and short thing from Dec, when this first came out. I have not heard more beyond that of what was specifically tested. That is my only question

This isn't a criminal case and as an outsider you are entitled to nothing. The NHL accused, the Coyotes admitted guilt, and were sentenced. They can possibly appeal the sentence but the guilty admission stands.

 

[BUX7PHX]

This isn't a criminal case and as an outsider you are entitled to nothing. The NHL accused, the Coyotes admitted guilt, and were sentenced. They can possibly appeal the sentence but the guilty admission stands.

Ok, who led this idea?

Was it Chayka? Was it Hofford? Was it a group decision? Was it some rogue scouts that we did not train properly? I absolutely believe that people should know who was involved. We know some aspects of whom we believe to be involved, since he is no longer with the organization. But, i think someone would like to know, if say, Sullivan was complicit. He is a candidate to be a GM for us, no? If he is hiding involvement, I think it is fair to know that. Until then, all we have is an admission of guilt into something that we don't know. If the physical testing was getting height and weight only, how much does that affect this, considering you could ascertain some of that information from a website for the team?

Does that seem like the punishment fits the crime? Pleading guilty is fine and well, but usually, those charges and what was done is known. What is the league so afraid of by not revealing it?

 

[Jamieh]

Ok, who led this idea?

Was it Chayka? Was it Hofford? Was it a group decision? Was it some rogue scouts that we did not train properly? I absolutely believe that people should know who was involved. We know some aspects of whom we believe to be involved, since he is no longer with the organization. But, i think someone would like to know, if say, Sullivan was complicit. He is a candidate to be a GM for us, no? If he is hiding involvement, I think it is fair to know that. Until then, all we have is an admission of guilt into something that we don't know. If the physical testing was getting height and weight only, how much does that affect this, considering you could ascertain some of that information from a website for the team?

Does that seem like the punishment fits the crime? Pleading guilty is fine and well, but usually, those charges and what was done is known. What is the league so afraid of by not revealing it?

What difference does any of that make? The Coyotes cheated, admitted guilt, got sentenced , and are moving on.

 

[Jamieh]

As for the sentence, yes it fits the crime . The NHL has always been hard on cheaters. Lucky to not get a massive fine to go with it.

 

[Coyotedroppings]

It was more than that. If it were only wearing T-shirts to interviews then the Coyotes wouldn't have said they 'conducted physical testing' or agreed to such a steep fine.

Who knows what it actually was, in some sense it'd be nice to find out. Unless what we did was really bad and Bettman did us a huge favor by only fining us a 1st and a 2nd. Meruelo is after all a new owner in a difficult market and Bettman needs him on his side.

Either way the grand plan mentioned in the previous post imo was more than enough to justify the fines, and honestly I think we probably did worse otherwise Meruelo wouldn't have acknowledged that we a) conducted physical testing and b) weren't going to fight the fine. Whatever you want to say, we are not in the right regarding this combine fiasco

Odd that you're quick to condemn, when we don't know squat.

 

[Coyotedroppings]

It's your team, so of course you're mad. If it was the Kings or Ducks, etc., you'd be saying they should have been fined $250k per violation on top of losing the draft picks.

That would be incredibly ignorant being as we have no explanation of what happened.

 

[Jamieh]

Odd that you're quick to condemn, when we don't know squat.

We do know the press release said physical testing not eyeballing.

 

[Coyotedroppings]

No sure how you can appeal it if you already pleaded guilty.

Semantics. Team thought they were pleading guilty to A, but league interpreted it as B

 

[Coyotes2000]

Looks more like John Chayka to be honest

 

[BUX7PHX]

What difference does any of that make? The Coyotes cheated, admitted guilt, got sentenced , and are moving on.

So, by that logic, the people that were picked up in Portland, OR by those unmarked vans committed a crime, right? Otherwise, they would not have been picked up right?

So, the only logical conclusion is that the Coyotes admitted fault to something that no one has been able to show what testing was done. Not one person has written about, nor one CHL player has discussed what specifically was done.

I absolutely see an issue in that.

 

[BUX7PHX]

We do know the press release said physical testing not eyeballing.

And right now, a press release by Trump means that is the truth, too?

 

[Coyotedroppings]

We do know the press release said physical testing not eyeballing.

Well that's just wonderful, given the stellar coverage thus far. What am I thinking to ever question this cut and dry situation.