Mike Richards VI (UGH): The Armageddon Edition (MOD NOTE POST #1)

[417th]

Exactly. We don't know.

So I feel Dean Lombardi has done more than enough to earn our faith and trust. He knows what he's doing.

Exactly what I and a few others have been saying since this crap wagon started rolling down the hill. We don't know the facts and DL is the greatest GM this team has ever had by a long long way. He isn't a "better try to sneak this in" kind of guy. Heck, he probably has a chart that he made two years ago with this scenario as a potential outcome and five or six index cards with various possible solutions on a white board in his office somewhere. I have faith. Good post.

 

[mouser]

The CBA is wonderfully (maddeningly) vague in that regard, and probably what the NHLPA will argue. Still, I can see 1-2 days or a weekend as being on the edge of acceptability. Not anywhere near 2 weeks. That reeks of a player trying to hide something, or at the very least a player thinking "well, if I haven't been formally arrested, I don't have to tell the Kings about it" and the Kings (and the NHL by extension) saying "wrongo, buddy".

I'm just spitballing obviously along with everyone else, but this scenario is what seems the most plausible to me of the scenarios by which the Kings would say "we want to cancel Mike's contract" and the NHL says "yep, that's a valid reason to do it".

Like the rest of us I'm still waiting to see all the facts come out. I wouldn't put too much weight on the NHL signing off though. I'm not sure the NHL could block the termination even if they wanted to. They could advise for or against it, but if the team is invoking that termination clause in the SPC I don't think the NHL could reject it on their own.

Either way there's a collective bargaining agreement in place between the league and player Union. Hopefully the grievance doesn't take too long to bring this to a resolution.

 

[Mitchnesses]

Stimpson J Cat is enlightening. Nice to see some legal precedent brought in.

 

[TonySCV]

This summer needs to calm the **** down.

This is supposed to be a quiet time! LOL.

 

[Fishhead]

Where in the standard player contract does it say that the player has an obligation to do his best to uphold his tradeablility and trade value? There would be a hundreds or more players that would have violated that throughout NHL history.

Those two things are quite different. The word "untradeable" if often used around here when a guy is severely overpaid or on a bad contract. That's actually trade value. The player is still technically able to be traded.

Truly untradeable means the player cannot be traded because of circumstances. If DL couldn't trade Richards to other teams because he was unable to enter the country, or in jail, or in any other way in violation of his contract, that is untradeable. DL could not on that day trade Richards because he got himself in a situation which removed the ability of Lombardi to negotiate in good-faith that the player could report to the team.

Dean had to make a judgement call right then and there. He had to evaluate what he was told, and it was obviously pretty serious. If you think about just how little information is out there, you can bet Dean knew little except that it was a very big deal. So he informed the other GM's of the issue and talks were terminated.

The fact that it happened 10 days earlier, he wasn't notified, and that investigations are ongoing makes it worse. All kinds of conclusions could be drawn from that. If it was a simple possession case, authorities aren't going to waste two weeks on it.

The SPC is very clear that the player must be in compliance with it, or the contract can be terminated. Being able to satisfy the contract if traded to another team is one aspect players must maintain.

 

[TonySCV]

Thank you for the welcome.

Here is the article in question.

https://kikimosleyimmigrationlaw.wo...ant-visa-revocation-and-removal-from-the-u-s/

There is what I feel is relevant discussion about halfway down. The article is about Justin Bieber but it provides statutes where Bieber could lose his work visa.

Like Richards, Bieber is a Canadian citizen on a work visa. The relevant passage is:

"When a nonimmigrant visa applicant seeks a visa to come to the U.S. to work, they apply through a U.S. embassy consular office and that visa can be revoked if the visa holder becomes ineligible to maintain the nonimmigrant visa, which can occur for a variety of reasons. There are criminal and related grounds for visa ineligibility, among other additional reasons a visa can be revoked. An excerpt from the statute containing grounds for visa revocation identifies criminal and related issues and states, “…any alien convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of (I) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense) or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime, or (II) a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance"

additional link:

http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-2006.html#0-0-0-1201

The example tossed out about Lamarr Hoyt doesn't consider this issue. In addition to all the things stated by other posters, Hoyt was a US citizen. This issue simply did not apply. He wouldn't need a work visa. MLB didn't play games in Mexico at the time either.

Thanks for this info. Interesting stuff.

 

[Ron*]

Thank you for the welcome.

Here is the article in question.

https://kikimosleyimmigrationlaw.wo...ant-visa-revocation-and-removal-from-the-u-s/

There is what I feel is relevant discussion about halfway down. The article is about Justin Bieber but it provides statutes where Bieber could lose his work visa.

Like Richards, Bieber is a Canadian citizen on a work visa. The relevant passage is:

"When a nonimmigrant visa applicant seeks a visa to come to the U.S. to work, they apply through a U.S. embassy consular office and that visa can be revoked if the visa holder becomes ineligible to maintain the nonimmigrant visa, which can occur for a variety of reasons. There are criminal and related grounds for visa ineligibility, among other additional reasons a visa can be revoked. An excerpt from the statute containing grounds for visa revocation identifies criminal and related issues and states, “…any alien convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of (I) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense) or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime, or (II) a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance"

additional link:

http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-2006.html#0-0-0-1201

The example tossed out about Lamarr Hoyt doesn't consider this issue. In addition to all the things stated by other posters, Hoyt was a US citizen. This issue simply did not apply. He wouldn't need a work visa. MLB didn't play games in Mexico at the time either.

Good info, but just wanted to clarify one tidbit: the Montreal Expos (now the Washington Nationals) were still in the league at the time. However, I don't know U.S. Immigration Law fully. Maybe he didn't need a work visa to play baseball in Montreal.

 

[mouser]

Those two things are quite different. The word "untradeable" if often used around here when a guy is severely overpaid or on a bad contract. That's actually trade value. The player is still technically able to be traded.

Truly untradeable means the player cannot be traded because of circumstances. If DL couldn't trade Richards to other teams because he was unable to enter the country, or in jail, or in any other way in violation of his contract, that is untradeable. DL could not on that day trade Richards because he got himself in a situation which removed the ability of Lombardi to negotiate in good-faith that the player could report to the team.

Dean had to make a judgement call right then and there. He had to evaluate what he was told, and it was obviously pretty serious. If you think about just how little information is out there, you can bet Dean knew little except that it was a very big deal. So he informed the other GM's of the issue and talks were terminated.

The fact that it happened 10 days earlier, he wasn't notified, and that investigations are ongoing makes it worse. All kinds of conclusions could be drawn from that. If it was a simple possession case, authorities aren't going to waste two weeks on it.

The SPC is very clear that the player must be in compliance with it, or the contract can be terminated. Being able to satisfy the contract if traded to another team is one aspect players must maintain.

These both get back to the question of whether a material breach actually happened, or there was the potential for a material breach in the future.

Uncertainty of a players legal situation that might result in a future material breach doesn't constitute a material breach today.

 

[onlyalad]

Speculation on my part but I would guess that Richards and/or the NHLPA are going to start attacking this very soon. Richards is going to either get money of get playing soon. This had to blindside him. He had to be thinking worst case he would be bought out. I think he wants this settled soon.
Canada is having all sorts of problems with Oxy being smuggled over the border. Now I don't know how much is involved here, but I don't believe Richards was planning on selling anything.
The delay in charging him may be waiting for lab results.
I think he made a big mistake not telling the team. We don't know how they found out but 7-10 days later is way too late

 

[Stimpythecat]

Good info, but just wanted to clarify one tidbit: the Montreal Expos (now the Washington Nationals) were still in the league at the time. However, I don't know U.S. Immigration Law fully. Maybe he didn't need a work visa to play baseball in Montreal.

I don't know Canadian law as it was in the 1980s. But according to this site, under current law it appears athletes do not need one. I have no experience in US immigration law either.


http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/work/apply-who-nopermit.asp

 

[kingsfan28]

The CBA is wonderfully (maddeningly) vague in that regard, and probably what the NHLPA will argue. Still, I can see 1-2 days or a weekend as being on the edge of acceptability. Not anywhere near 2 weeks. That reeks of a player/agent trying to hide something, or at the very least a player/agent thinking "well, if I haven't been formally arrested, I don't have to tell the Kings about it" and the Kings (and the NHL by extension) saying "wrongo, buddy".

I'm just spitballing obviously along with everyone else, but this scenario is what seems the most plausible to me of the scenarios by which the Kings would say "we want to cancel Mike's contract" and the NHL says "yep, that's a valid reason to do it".

Not to mention if trades had been made and THEN this came out? Everyone of the media knuckleheads would be saying that Dean/the Kings knew about this and tried to hide it, especially given all the other off ice shenanigans the Kings have dealt with this year.

It wouldn't look good at all.Lets say he is traded then this comes out , the team we traded with may have grounds to have the trade voided and cause an even bigger ripple effect.

I still like to know who had the legal weight to have every hockey writer terrified to report the facts to the story. I've never seen so many guys back away from reporting what happened like they did.

 

[Stimpythecat]

Yeah, the fear displayed by all the hockey writers/reporters is really noteworthy. That makes me think there is a lot we don't know.

I'll wait for all the facts to come out before passing judgement.


I should note that I agreed with Dean Lombardi's decision not to use the "free" buy out last year. Loyalty is a two way street. We can't expect players to show loyalty when the organization doesn't show loyalty in return.

 

[kingsfan28]

Speculation on my part but I would guess that Richards and/or the NHLPA are going to start attacking this very soon. Richards is going to either get money of get playing soon. This had to blindside him. He had to be thinking worst case he would be bought out. I think he wants this settled soon.
Canada is having all sorts of problems with Oxy being smuggled over the border. Now I don't know how much is involved here, but I don't believe Richards was planning on selling anything.
The delay in charging him may be waiting for lab results.
I think he made a big mistake not telling the team. We don't know how they found out but 7-10 days later is way too late

Yep, and just who told Dean? I can't see either Richards or his agent telling him an hour into the draft. It had to come from someone else, which looks even worse.

 

[Fishhead]

I still like to know who had the legal weight to have every hockey writer terrified to report the facts to the story. I've never seen so many guys back away from reporting what happened like they did.

Government? Maybe the ongoing investigation has other targets? Movement of prescription drugs through corridors in Ontario and by the Lake of the Woods has been a problem for some time now. If it was simple the investigation wouldn't last 2 weeks. Like someone mentioned, it could be lab testing, but Oxy is identifiable by the numbers on the tablets.

 

[kingsfan28]

Government? Maybe the ongoing investigation has other targets? Movement of prescription drugs through corridors in Ontario and by the Lake of the Woods has been a problem for some time now. If it was simple the investigation wouldn't last 2 weeks. Like someone mentioned, it could be lab testing, but Oxy is identifiable by the numbers on the tablets.

Quite possibly. I guess TMZ isn't afraid of Canada.

 

[tsanuri]

Thank you for the welcome.

Here is the article in question.

https://kikimosleyimmigrationlaw.wo...ant-visa-revocation-and-removal-from-the-u-s/

There is what I feel is relevant discussion about halfway down. The article is about Justin Bieber but it provides statutes where Bieber could lose his work visa.

Like Richards, Bieber is a Canadian citizen on a work visa. The relevant passage is:

"When a nonimmigrant visa applicant seeks a visa to come to the U.S. to work, they apply through a U.S. embassy consular office and that visa can be revoked if the visa holder becomes ineligible to maintain the nonimmigrant visa, which can occur for a variety of reasons. There are criminal and related grounds for visa ineligibility, among other additional reasons a visa can be revoked. An excerpt from the statute containing grounds for visa revocation identifies criminal and related issues and states, “…any alien convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of (I) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense) or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime, or (II) a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance"

additional link:

http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-2006.html#0-0-0-1201

The example tossed out about Lamarr Hoyt doesn't consider this issue. In addition to all the things stated by other posters, Hoyt was a US citizen. This issue simply did not apply. He wouldn't need a work visa. MLB didn't play games in Mexico at the time either.

Great info here. And where I agree it could apply the fact that it would go before an arbitrator makes it messy. They just don't like voiding contracts.

 

[deaderhead28]

Now I don't know if this guy's legit or its already been posted,but I found this post on Twitter about Richards actually being arrested.Hope this isn't against the rules.If it is admins please delete.

Paul Friesen @friesensunmedia Winnipeg-based sportswriter for Sun Media. NHL and CFL outsider.

Source says Mike Richards was formally arrested at border crossing, not merely detained for questioning. Investigation now at two-week mark.
5:38pm - 30 Jun 15

Winnipeg Sun Sports also had a link to the story.

@WinSunSports: Sources tell us Mike Richards subject of OxyContin investigation. Held at least 4 hrs at Emerson June 17.
http://t.co/1oPNbNPhNT

 

[MsMeow]

Now I don't know if this guy's legit or its already been posted,but I found this post on Twitter about Richards actually being arrested.Hope this isn't against the rules.If it is admins please delete.

Paul Friesen @friesensunmedia Winnipeg-based sportswriter for Sun Media. NHL and CFL outsider.

Source says Mike Richards was formally arrested at border crossing, not merely detained for questioning. Investigation now at two-week mark.
5:38pm - 30 Jun 15

Winnipeg Sun Sports also had a link to the story.

@WinSunSports: Sources tell us Mike Richards subject of OxyContin investigation. Held at least 4 hrs at Emerson June 17.
http://t.co/1oPNbNPhNT

It's already been posted. He's the only one who has said there was an arrest, based on his sources. Everyone else is quoting him.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

There has to be some kind of homeland security border law which protected the arrest news from breaking the day it happened.

 

[MsMeow]

There has to be some kind of homeland security border law which protected the arrest news from breaking the day it happened.

It's been 2 weeks, you'd think something more would have come out by now.

 

[Minor Boarding]

The trade boards (frenzy boards) is reaching level ****ing stupid. About 1000 "lawyers" post in the Richards thread, none of them has any confirmed informations, but they already know the outcome of the grievance process that hasn't been even filled yet.

I don't even...

 

[deeshamrock]

It's already been posted. He's the only one who has said there was an arrest, based on his sources. Everyone else is quoting him.

I think that he misunderstood the info his 'source' provided or he did understand it and misrepresented it to grab headline.

THe incident took place at a border crossing called Emerson, which is south of Winnipeg. When they found the pills, Richards would have a lot of questions to answer and the RCMP would investigate and have forms and reports to fill out. He spent a few hours doing that and they released him, as per the RCMP, no arrest and no charges filed at that time (June 17) but the article says they won't comment on the investigation.

MY guess is that this guy's 'source' took that information and somehow either he or the tweeter, assumed it was an arrest.

I don't thing being questioned is the same thing.
Just my guess as to how it could have been misunderstood.

And that info I got form a Winnpeg New article:

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2015/06/...gated-for-bringing-oxycontin-across-us-border

“We have not charged Mike Richards with anything,” RCMP spokesperson Tara Seel told the Winnipeg Sun, Tuesday, not confirming whether Richards has even been questioned. “In terms of an ongoing investigation, we cannot discuss who or who may not be investigated.”

 

[Chazz Reinhold]

I think that he misunderstood the info his 'source' provided or he did understand it and misrepresented it to grab headline.

THe incident took place at a border crossing called Emerson, which is south of Winnipeg. When they found the pills, Richards would have a lot of questions to answer and the RCMP would investigate and have forms and reports to fill out. He spent a few hours doing that and they released him, as per the RCMP, no arrest and no charges filed at that time (June 17) but the article says they won't comment on the investigation.

MY guess is that this guy's 'source' took that information and somehow either he or the tweeter, assumed it was an arrest.

I don't thing being questioned is the same thing.
Just my guess as to how it could have been misunderstood.

And that info I got form a Winnpeg New article:

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2015/06/...gated-for-bringing-oxycontin-across-us-border

That article was written by the same guy who tweeted that he was arrested. And not being charged with anything doesn't mean he wasn't arrested; those are two entirely separate issues.

 

[Peter James Bond II]

Regarding what reporters said the first day the story was broke, I saw a post (not a link, this may have been verbal on an interview) that one of them said "this is icky"
and "people will be shocked"....who said that, if that even was said? If it was just possession of oxycontin and making a border crossing, that is not 'icky' or 'shocking'.

What would constitute 'icky' ? I could state things that would be, but not going there.
If there is something sordid and there are those that know, that is a reason why no
one wants to be the one that states what it was.

Several here keep saying this was Dean's call. No way. It had to be higher up and the top legal counsel that made the call. (not that DL would have chosen not to terminate)

.

 

[gnarls barkley]

Regarding what reporters said the first day the story was broke, I saw a post (not a link, this may have been verbal on an interview) that one of them said "this is icky"
and "people will be shocked"....who said that, if that even was said? If it was just possession of oxycontin and making a border crossing, that is not 'icky' or 'shocking'.

What would constitute 'icky' ? I could state things that would be, but not going there.
If there is something sordid and there are those that know, that is a reason why no
one wants to be the one that states what it was.

Several here keep saying this was Dean's call. No way. It had to be higher up and the top legal counsel that made the call. (not that DL would have chosen not to terminate)

.

and still, hardly any details have come out

this whole situation is just still so weird, i can't help but think the oxy is just the tip of the iceberg