Mike Richards Charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance (Post 360)

[mouser]

Prior thread here:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1924771

Mod warning: 13) Libel: Any posts libeling players, prospects, or hockey personnel. It's not acceptable to post that you heard Player X has a drinking/drug/sex/personal problem from a "good" source. Do not post information that can be considered defamatory without a link to a credible media source. Other forums, personal websites, hearsay, and personal testimonials are not considered credible.

Reminder:

“We are not prepared to provide any more detail or to discuss the underlying grounds for the contract termination at this time,” the Kings said in a statement.

According to most recent reports, Richard is still under investigation and has not been charged. Please keep that in mind when commenting.

Click to read more...

 

[pld459666]

I'd like to hear the reasoning for the delay.

But I am glad the NHLPA filed the grievance here.

Hope the Kings are on the hook for the full nut

 

[theMajor]

I'd like to hear the reasoning for the delay.

But I am glad the NHLPA filed the grievance here.

Hope the Kings are on the hook for the full nut

the timing is certainly interesting. from what I understand the NHLPA had at least a few more weeks to file before the deadline. maybe it took them a while to compile the facts/their case?
I just want this to be over with already, for better or worse.

 

[mouser]

I'd like to hear the reasoning for the delay.

But I am glad the NHLPA filed the grievance here.

Hope the Kings are on the hook for the full nut

My assumption would be because it's critically important for the PA that they get the grievance right and win. They don't want to allow any precedent that teams can terminate contracts this way. More important to take the time to investigate and carefully craft their challenge then rush to appeal as quickly as possible.

There's also the possibility that the PA's case could be strengthened by waiting, if the Kings' basis for the termination includes the potential that Richards will be charged with something illegal in the future. The longer time went on without Richards being charged the less weight that argument would hold that the team needed to urgently make a decision on termination.

 

[kasper11]

I'd like to hear the reasoning for the delay.

But I am glad the NHLPA filed the grievance here.

Hope the Kings are on the hook for the full nut

Well, there are two competing considerations on when to file...

1) It is beneficial to wait as long as possible to see if there are any developments that may impact your decision to appeal or your application.

2) Richards obviously has an interest in getting reinstated prior to the season, preferably prior to training camp.

My guess is that the NHLPA waited as long as possible before filing while still giving a chance for a resolution in mid-September.

 

[Eric Sachs]

My assumption would be because it's critically important for the PA that they get the grievance right and win. They don't want to allow any precedent that teams can terminate contracts this way. More important to take the time to investigate and carefully craft their challenge then rush to appeal as quickly as possible.

There's also the possibility that the PA's case could be strengthened by waiting, if the Kings' basis for the termination includes the potential that Richards will be charged with something illegal in the future. The longer time went on without Richards being charged the less weight that argument would hold that the team needed to urgently make a decision on termination.

I do wonder whether the independent arbitrator would decide based on the information available to the Kings at the time.

As in, does he merely decide whether the Kings were justified in terminating the contract due to a material breach on June 30th (or whatever) or does he get to include any events that transpired afterwards?

Let's say Richards is arrested tomorrow on a related charge. Theoretically, he was not arrested while he had an SPC with the Kings. Does that matter?

Let's say he is arrested tomorrow on an entirely different charge from an entirely different situation. Same question.

 

[tomd]

I do wonder whether the independent arbitrator would decide based on the information available to the Kings at the time.

As in, does he merely decide whether the Kings were justified in terminating the contract due to a material breach on June 30th (or whatever) or does he get to include any events that transpired afterwards?

Let's say Richards is arrested tomorrow on a related charge. Theoretically, he was not arrested while he had an SPC with the Kings. Does that matter?

Let's say he is arrested tomorrow on an entirely different charge from an entirely different situation. Same question.

I would think that the arbitrator would have to determine whether whatever Richards did was a material breach of his contract based on his actions at that time.

I would also think that subsequent events (i.e. whether or not he is charged) would either strengthen or weaken the Kings case.

what would be really interesting is the following scenario...at the time of the contract termination (end of June) there was nothing that would have prohibited Richards from fulfilling his contractual obligations. Subsequently however, (and before the arbitration hearing), Richards is formally charged and his visa revoked (not sure that can happen but just a what if). So the actual material breach occurred after the contract was terminated. Would the arbitrator rule for the NHLPA or the Kings in that event?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I would think that the arbitrator would have to determine whether whatever Richards did was a material breach of his contract based on his actions at that time.

I would also think that subsequent events (i.e. whether or not he is charged) would either strengthen or weaken the Kings case.

what would be really interesting is the following scenario...at the time of the contract termination (end of June) there was nothing that would have prohibited Richards from fulfilling his contractual obligations. Subsequently however, (and before the arbitration hearing), Richards is formally charged and his visa revoked (not sure that can happen but just a what if). So the actual material breach occurred after the contract was terminated. Would the arbitrator rule for the NHLPA or the Kings in that event?

If it's about the arrest at the border, the Kings don't have a leg to stand on because there's a drug program collectively bargained for and in place that they have to abide by. Possible consequences don't justify a termination of a contract prior to it. There's no real way to justify that for them.

If I had to bet, the Kings' case is going to be more about the advising part of it rather than the actual arrest/investigation/drugs part of it. There's a better argument there for their position with this situation than the event itself. Still not good enough to win, imo, but better than what amounts to a flat-out ignoring of the drug program they have to abide by.

 

[Buddy The Elf]

the timing is certainly interesting. from what I understand the NHLPA had at least a few more weeks to file before the deadline. maybe it took them a while to compile the facts/their case?
I just want this to be over with already, for better or worse.

I don't know how the timeline of this works but perhaps they filed in time to make sure this is resolved before the start of the season?

Does anyone know if the NHL or NHLPA will make public why the Kings terminated the contract?

 

[KINGS17]

If it's about the arrest at the border, the Kings don't have a leg to stand on because there's a drug program collectively bargained for and in place that they have to abide by. Possible consequences don't justify a termination of a contract prior to it. There's no real way to justify that for them.

If I had to bet, the Kings' case is going to be more about the advising part of it rather than the actual arrest/investigation/drugs part of it. There's a better argument there for their position with this situation than the event itself. Still not good enough to win, imo, but better than what amounts to a flat-out ignoring of the drug program they have to abide by.

And again, not a single one of you even know if he was arrested, or if he was how much or exactly what he was carrying or how it was being transported.

The charges could range from simple possession to trafficking and conspiracy charges, but yet "If it's about the arrest at the border, the Kings don't have a leg to stand on..."

There is an on-going investigation by the RCMP. Does that sound like it's just about a few pills?

You do bring up a good point about Richards failure to notify the Kings regarding this issue. That could be one of the points that the Kings will bring up in their argument. Maybe Richards had a duty to notify them if he was detained.

 

[tomd]

If it's about the arrest at the border, the Kings don't have a leg to stand on because there's a drug program collectively bargained for and in place that they have to abide by. Possible consequences don't justify a termination of a contract prior to it. There's no real way to justify that for them.

If I had to bet, the Kings' case is going to be more about the advising part of it rather than the actual arrest/investigation/drugs part of it. There's a better argument there for their position with this situation than the event itself. Still not good enough to win, imo, but better than what amounts to a flat-out ignoring of the drug program they have to abide by.

Yes, of course, you are right on the drug charges and that does seem like an automatic loser for the Kings unless it is a trafficking charge.

Regarding the advising, I think that is a loser as well for the Kings for the simple fact that it was Lombardi who unilaterally terminated trade discussions with the other 2 teams. Who is to say that the other teams would not have gone ahead with the trade anyway and were more interested in the assets the Kings were giving up then they were in Richards the player. And it will certainly come out in the arbitration hearing whether the trade talks were even remotely serious or not. I suspect they were not serious talks.

 

[third man in]

Good I was expecting this. Sleazy way to get rid of a bad contract.

 

[Gilligans Island]

And again, not a single one of you even know if he was arrested, or if he was how much or exactly what he was carrying or how it was being transported.

The charges could range from simple possession to trafficking and conspiracy charges, but yet "If it's about the arrest at the border, the Kings don't have a leg to stand on..."

There is an on-going investigation by the RCMP. Does that sound like it's just about a few pills?

Drug policy says hi!

Regarding the advising, I think that is a loser as well for the Kings for the simple fact that it was Lombardi who unilaterally terminated trade discussions with the other 2 teams. Who is to say that the other teams would not have gone ahead with the trade anyway and were more interested in the assets the Kings were giving up then they were in Richards the player. And it will certainly come out in the arbitration hearing whether the trade talks were even remotely serious or not. I suspect they were not serious talks.

I'll trust Mirtle who said Kings weren't close to trading during the weekend. Or wait, he must be biased, too, I guess.

 

[kasper11]

If it's about the arrest at the border, the Kings don't have a leg to stand on because there's a drug program collectively bargained for and in place that they have to abide by. Possible consequences don't justify a termination of a contract prior to it. There's no real way to justify that for them.

If I had to bet, the Kings' case is going to be more about the advising part of it rather than the actual arrest/investigation/drugs part of it. There's a better argument there for their position with this situation than the event itself. Still not good enough to win, imo, but better than what amounts to a flat-out ignoring of the drug program they have to abide by.

To be clear, the NHL CBA outlines what steps a team may take in relation to a player USING drugs. It does NOT cover other drug-related offenses.

I believe the distinction would come down to whether Richards had drugs for personal use or for distribution. Not saying that would be enough for a material breach, just that it would remove the case from the drug addiction provisions of the CBA.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I would think that the arbitrator would have to determine whether whatever Richards did was a material breach of his contract based on his actions at that time.

I would also think that subsequent events (i.e. whether or not he is charged) would either strengthen or weaken the Kings case.

what would be really interesting is the following scenario...at the time of the contract termination (end of June) there was nothing that would have prohibited Richards from fulfilling his contractual obligations. Subsequently however, (and before the arbitration hearing), Richards is formally charged and his visa revoked (not sure that can happen but just a what if). So the actual material breach occurred after the contract was terminated. Would the arbitrator rule for the NHLPA or the Kings in that event?

Really interesting question imo and an angle not many of us have considered, i.e. what if the Kings' case started out flimsy but was actually strengthened over time? I imagine it would be like what others have said--that you would imagine they have to rule based on the facts at the time of the termination--but I could see all sorts of complications here. I guess we're all pretty lucky experienced people are involved in the process. What a mess.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

And again, not a single one of you even know if he was arrested, or if he was how much or exactly what he was carrying or how it was being transported.

The charges could range from simple possession to trafficking and conspiracy charges, but yet "If it's about the arrest at the border, the Kings don't have a leg to stand on..."

There is an on-going investigation by the RCMP. Does that sound like it's just about a few pills?

You do bring up a good point about Richards failure to notify the Kings regarding this issue. That could be one of the points that the Kings will bring up in their argument. Maybe Richards had a duty to notify them if he was detained.

From my understanding, he was formally arrested, according to Paul Friesen, but what the exact particulars are of no relevance to the grievance process with regards to the termination. So whatever they may or may not charge him with is irrelevant to proving that the Kings had grounds to terminate the contract because that stuff is all governed by the drug program in the CBA.

As for the notification side, that one's a bit more foggy in terms of what responsibilities are there especially given the time of the season and the time between the incident and the termination. That one's a bit more open to debate, imo. The actual drug and arrest incident though really isn't for the purposes of the termination and grievance.

 

[Shakey Rustie]

Sorry if it has been mentioned, but who is hearing the grievance, and is there a possible appeal from the ruling on the grievance?

 

[MsMeow]

From my understanding, he was formally arrested, according to Paul Friesen, but what the exact particulars are of no relevance to the grievance process with regards to the termination. So whatever they may or may not charge him with is irrelevant to proving that the Kings had grounds to terminate the contract because that stuff is all governed by the drug program in the CBA.

As for the notification side, that one's a bit more foggy in terms of what responsibilities are there especially given the time of the season and the time between the incident and the termination. That one's a bit more open to debate, imo. The actual drug and arrest incident though really isn't for the purposes of the termination and grievance.

I don't think the police have said he was arrested, and Friesen said sources told him but he's the only one to report that.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

To be clear, the NHL CBA outlines what steps a team may take in relation to a player USING drugs. It does NOT cover other drug-related offenses.

I believe the distinction would come down to whether Richards had drugs for personal use or for distribution. Not saying that would be enough for a material breach, just that it would remove the case from the drug addiction provisions of the CBA.

To be clear, the NHL CBA that is available to the public doesn't cover drug-related offenses. That document is not the complete one and one of the things it omits is the drug policy and its subsequent protocols. Those protocols have often been referred to by media regarding this case. I have a hard time doubting all of them but it may be possible.

 

[crazyforhockey]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmacramalla/2015/08/12/mike-richards-so-what-now/

 

[Kamiccolo]

Good. Hopefully he gets reinstated, Kings get hit with a massive fine, Richards and the Kings dont want each other, They get desperate, and pay a large price to move Ricahrds

Hopefully Toronto is first in line to offer to take him for an assortment of picks and prospects.

 

[crazyforhockey]

Sorry if it has been mentioned, but who is hearing the grievance, and is there a possible appeal from the ruling on the grievance?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmacramalla/2015/08/12/mike-richards-so-what-now/artial arbitrator with extensive labor law experince

 

[Gilligans Island]

Sorry if it has been mentioned, but who is hearing the grievance, and is there a possible appeal from the ruling on the grievance?

TSN reports that it's George Nicolau

http://www.tsn.ca/ex-king-richards-remains-in-limbo-1.338894

 

[moosehead81]

I don't think the police have said he was arrested, and Friesen said sources told him but he's the only one to report that.

He wasn't arrested; he was detained, likely for a search and to wait for the Mounties to arrive from their nearest detachment, some 30 miles away. A reporter (including Friesen) need simply ask the police if an arrest was made at the time; I believe the police would answer that (but maybe not, who knows anymore). My sense is Richards had oxy and a prescription for it and the "investigation" entails checking into the validity of the prescription. One question I'd have, particularly if this is nothing more than a routine border stop involving a subsequent police investigation, is who in hell advised the Kings within the 14 days from the apparent time of the incident until draft week-end. Given the secrecy provided by "officialdom" all around us, that's a burning question in my mind. if the Kings had not been told of the incident, they'd still not know (of course assuming that is the crux of the reason for the contract termination)

 

[Shakey Rustie]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmacramalla/2015/08/12/mike-richards-so-what-now/artial arbitrator with extensive labor law experince

TSN reports that it's George Nicolau

http://www.tsn.ca/ex-king-richards-remains-in-limbo-1.338894

Thanks! I read the article and saw the arbitrator, but am on a company computer and cannot download the CBA to see what the appeal process (if any) is like. Any information on if there is one, and if so, what it is? Just curious what the jurisdiction would be (should there be an appeal process) than anything.