FWIW, I'm actually agreeing with Sideshow here. Schlemko is injured now, but before, I'm pretty confident it was just healthy scratches. Schlemko sounded dumbfounded with his comments of why he was scratched. Deboer's excuse was that he's scratching players if they aren't playing up-to-par (which I thought was ridiculous since Schlemko was the 2nd best D after Burns at the time).
Both of those comments don't come out if Schlemko is just injured. "Upper-body injury", "Day-to-day", "Banged up" are all vague excuses that coaches make all the time to not give other teams an edge. You don't say what was actually said. It really doesn't make sense to not say he was injured before, but announce it now.
Seems like we're just trying to rewrite history in any way to not critique a decision. First, some argue he "partied" with his Calgary friends. Then that he had some "locker-room" drama. And now he was injured the whole time?