TSN: Cooke - Suspended 7 games.

[qc]

Welp we can all blame Quintal for this, but we'd be missing the mark in doing so.

It all comes down to the CBA, the player's union, and the owners who are willing to employ turds like Cooke.

Oh and this is Cooke's counsel..

 

[DominicT]

So will I.

Cooke has got to go.

Too bad the commissioner does not [AFAIK] have the power to remove him permanently for the good of the sport.

There's a conflict between the NHL Constitution and the CBA. Before I get to that, there has been one NHL player in the history of the game that had been banned for life. The ban was lifted 3 years later but he never played again. Oh, and he played for the Bruins...

Anyway, the NHL Constitution basically says:

The Commissioner has final authority on all discipline and cannot be challenged EXCEPT when the discipline is expulsion from the league or anything greater than two years, the player can appeal to the full Board of Governors.

Of course, we know the new CBA gives the player (through the NHLPA) the right to take that appeal to an independent arbitrator, which is now the "final" word.

Constitutionally, Bettman can kick a player out of the league - but he is no longer the final voice

 

[Roll 4 Lines]

There's a conflict between the NHL Constitution and the CBA. Before I get to that, there has been one NHL player in the history of the game that had been banned for life. The ban was lifted 3 years later but he never played again. Oh, and he played for the Bruins...

Anyway, the NHL Constitution basically says:

The Commissioner has final authority on all discipline and cannot be challenged EXCEPT when the discipline is expulsion from the league or anything greater than two years, the player can appeal to the full Board of Governors.

Of course, we know the new CBA gives the player (through the NHLPA) the right to take that appeal to an independent arbitrator, which is now the "final" word.

Constitutionally, Bettman can kick a player out of the league - but he is no longer the final voice

Babe Pratt?

 

[DominicT]

Babe Pratt?

Nope. I Believe Frank Calder was president of the NHL at the time

This was for an on ice incident. There were a few more banned for life for gambling

 

[BMC]

There's a conflict between the NHL Constitution and the CBA. Before I get to that, there has been one NHL player in the history of the game that had been banned for life. The ban was lifted 3 years later but he never played again. Oh, and he played for the Bruins...

Anyway, the NHL Constitution basically says:

The Commissioner has final authority on all discipline and cannot be challenged EXCEPT when the discipline is expulsion from the league or anything greater than two years, the player can appeal to the full Board of Governors.

Of course, we know the new CBA gives the player (through the NHLPA) the right to take that appeal to an independent arbitrator, which is now the "final" word.

Constitutionally, Bettman can kick a player out of the league - but he is no longer the final voice

So he can but he can't really. Interesting.

I would still give a lot to know what is going on within the NHLPA about the Cooke problem. I can only hope the NHLPA finally turns on this guy the way the MLBPA finally turned on Alex Rodriguez & for less reason IMO.

 

[Roll 4 Lines]

Nope. I Believe Frank Calder was president of the NHL at the time

This was for an on ice incident. There were a few more banned for life for gambling

I think Pratt was banned for gambling, then reinstated.

I could be thinking of Babe Seibert....always confuse the 2 from my old hockey history reading days!

 

[Kaoz*]

Nope. I Believe Frank Calder was president of the NHL at the time

This was for an on ice incident. There were a few more banned for life for gambling

Interesting stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_in_ice_hockey

Billy Coutu was the first, and to date only, player banned from the NHL for life for violence in 1927; he assaulted referee Jerry Laflamme and tackled referee Billy Bell before starting a bench-clearing brawl during a Stanley Cup game between the Boston Bruins and Ottawa Senators, apparently on the orders of Bruins coach Art Ross. The NHL's first president, Frank Calder, expelled Coutu from the NHL for life; the ban was lifted after 2½ years, but Coutu never played in the NHL again.

Cooke deserved far far more. They had a chance to set a positive precedent, but instead are setting a negative. Pretty much have to kill someone to get a serious suspension (7 games is peanuts).

 

[Artemis]

So he can but he can't really. Interesting.

I would still give a lot to know what is going on within the NHLPA about the Cooke problem. I can only hope the NHLPA finally turns on this guy the way the MLBPA finally turned on Alex Rodriguez & for less reason IMO.

I don't think anyone in the NHLPA is an advocate for Cooke. The problem is, as a member of the union, he has the same right to representation as anyone else. Even the worst criminals have the right to a lawyer. Deny one, then where do you stop?

 

[CDJ]

So what first offender Shawn Thornton did is TWICE as bad as what Cooke did?

I need to go outside to get some air, this is ridiculous.

 

[qc]

So what first offender Shawn Thornton did is TWICE as bad as what Cooke did?

I need to go outside to get some air, this is ridiculous.

It's the Bettman factor.

Bettman was directly involved in the Thornton ruling, since it was appealed. Not to mention- he knew how much press the incident was getting, combined with the other lawsuits, etc. He definitely came down hard on Thorty, but if you read the ruling, he seems to be rather sympathetic to Shawn. 15 games had more to do with appeasing the media and anti-hockey violence advocates than anything else, imo.

I don't think he meddled in this recent Cooke ruling though. If it was a knee to the head, I'm sure he would've put on his powdered wig to write up a scathing decision. As bad as Cooke is, in Bettman's eyes, he's not a big issue right now.. The commish is zoned in on the concussion problem, class actions, and the potential affects that they may have on the league.

 

[bp13]

So what first offender Shawn Thornton did is TWICE as bad as what Cooke did?

I need to go outside to get some air, this is ridiculous.

What strikes me as so odd is the NHL's decision to approach suspensions so litigiously. Matt Cooke is obviously a serial predator. Anyone idiot can see this. Yet when he commits another predatory act, they focus so much on that act and how it stacks up to other acts' suspension and all but ignore that the body of work from this guy is outrageous. Why would any organization choose to take this approach? Are they so desperate for polarizing villains that they think keeping him around is better for the product than getting rid of him?

And I still go back to my big question, which is why someone hasn't snapped and ended this guy's career. Tie Domi sneakily took off his glove and suckered Ulf, and the entire league loved it. We need a new Tie Domi, but in this case it shouldn't be a punch it should be a slewfoot, a board to the numbers or a dive at his knees from behind. It honestly makes me wonder whether the players have gone soft.

 

[Artemis]

What strikes me as so odd is the NHL's decision to approach suspensions so litigiously. Matt Cooke is obviously a serial predator. Anyone idiot can see this. Yet when he commits another predatory act, they focus so much on that act and how it stacks up to other acts' suspension and all but ignore that the body of work from this guy is outrageous. Why would any organization choose to take this approach? Are they so desperate for polarizing villains that they think keeping him around is better for the product than getting rid of him?

And I still go back to my big question, which is why someone hasn't snapped and ended this guy's career. Tie Domi sneakily took off his glove and suckered Ulf, and the entire league loved it. We need a new Tie Domi, but in this case it shouldn't be a punch it should be a slewfoot, a board to the numbers or a dive at his knees from behind. It honestly makes me wonder whether the players have gone soft.

As I said in a previous post, what rat (Torres, Kaleta, etc.) is going to sacrifice himself to take out Cooke? They're the same sort of player, if only to a slightly lesser degree.

Alternatively, what if some honest, hard-hitting player decides to teach Cooke a lesson and ends up paralyzing him? It'd be Bertuzzi all over again.

Frontier justice may be satisfying, and God knows I'd love to see Cooke taken out, but it often goes horribly awry. It's up to the law (the NHL) to disarm this guy and protect their own, and so far they're doing a lousy job of it. I just pray that next time (and there will be a next time) Cooke doesn't kill someone.

 

[Ladyfan]

Funny you say that.

I was considering starting one. My only problem is whether I want one specifically related to this suspension or supplemental discipline in general. Was leaning towards the latter since the first one would never get enough signatures in time to do anything about it.

I will sign it.

 

[Kaoz*]

It's the Bettman factor.

Bettman was directly involved in the Thornton ruling, since it was appealed. Not to mention- he knew how much press the incident was getting, combined with the other lawsuits, etc. He definitely came down hard on Thorty, but if you read the ruling, he seems to be rather sympathetic to Shawn. 15 games had more to do with appeasing the media and anti-hockey violence advocates than anything else, imo.

I don't think he meddled in this recent Cooke ruling though. If it was a knee to the head, I'm sure he would've put on his powdered wig to write up a scathing decision. As bad as Cooke is, in Bettman's eyes, he's not a big issue right now.. The commish is zoned in on the concussion problem, class actions, and the potential affects that they may have on the league.

Bettman wasn't brought in until the appeal though, which was already post decision by Shanahan and his cronies. What points to him affecting the decision other then the fact that he had the power to veto it and didn't?

Shanahan is the guy that caved to public outcry, not Bettman. The guy did so continuously so I'm not sure why it's shocking either. After the Lucic/Miller outrage he promised to change the way he interpreted the rules based on the owners decisions and public outcry for christsakes. Say what you want to about Colin Campbells consistency but the guy bowed to neither public pressure nor the owners. He made the calls regardless of how the public perceived them.

 

[bp13]

As I said in a previous post, what rat (Torres, Kaleta, etc.) is going to sacrifice himself to take out Cooke? They're the same sort of player, if only to a slightly lesser degree.

Alternatively, what if some honest, hard-hitting player decides to teach Cooke a lesson and ends up paralyzing him? It'd be Bertuzzi all over again.

Frontier justice may be satisfying, and God knows I'd love to see Cooke taken out, but it often goes horribly awry. It's up to the law (the NHL) to disarm this guy and protect their own, and so far they're doing a lousy job of it. I just pray that next time (and there will be a next time) Cooke doesn't kill someone.

While I'll keep my fingers crossed that one day soon he ends up carried off the ice for the last time, at the very least I'd be satisfied if I felt teams targeted him the way they might a guy like Marchand.

And Cooke is hands down the worst in the NHL and he only got 7 games for his latest leg check. 7 games. A first time offender can't go for a hit from behind, a leg check or an ankle chop and suck up the 5 or so games? Seems strange to me.

 

[Roll 4 Lines]

I will sign it.

I'm guessing there'll be a long line of people wanting to sign.

 

[qc]

Bettman wasn't brought in until the appeal though, which was already post decision by Shanahan and his cronies. What points to him affecting the decision other then the fact that he had the power to veto it and didn't?

Maybe it's just a conspiracy theory of mine (as I have no evidence that Bettman was involved prior to the appeal ruling), but I believe he had some degree of involvement; that particular incident garnered a ton of public outcry/media attention.

And I agree with ya about Colin.

 

[Ladyfan]

I'm guessing there'll be a long line of people wanting to sign.

Many players too.

 

[ksp1957]

Many players too.

Unless they're from Pittsburgh or Minnesota.

 

[mHlnGXt9Xlnn1Qes3Vtn]

Some homicidal maniac just stormed the Minnesota podium demanding to be heard

 

[Artemis]

Maybe it's just a conspiracy theory of mine (as I have no evidence that Bettman was involved prior to the appeal ruling), but I believe he had some degree of involvement; that particular incident garnered a ton of public outcry/media attention.

And I agree with ya about Colin.

The Thornton incident spilled over to general sports public knowledge, and Bettman's going to be on that like white on rice. Cooke's latest victim wasn't carried off on a stretcher accompanied by blaring headlines about the viciousness of hockey. Of course serious hockey followers are outraged, but we're not the general public, or more importantly, advertisers/sponsors.

 

[BMC]

I don't think anyone in the NHLPA is an advocate for Cooke. The problem is, as a member of the union, he has the same right to representation as anyone else. Even the worst criminals have the right to a lawyer. Deny one, then where do you stop?

I'm not saying he shouldn't have that right. But it certainly puts the NHLPA in an awkward position- they have to defend a union member who has shown continuous reckless disregard for the health of other union members. This can't sit well with the membership even if they understand the reasoning behind it.

 

[missingchicklet]

In what universe does an organization think it's ok to allow someone who is intentionally injuring other workers within that organization time after time to keep doing so? I know legally it probably has no teeth, but the next player that gets injured by Cooke should sue the heck out of the NHL for workplace safety violations. I know that hockey is a sport where workers get hurt constantly every night, but they at least deserve the assurance that another worker is not being allowed to be a serial maniac with intent to cause serious injury in the workplace.

 

[Kaoz*]

The Thornton incident spilled over to general sports public knowledge, and Bettman's going to be on that like white on rice. Cooke's latest victim wasn't carried off on a stretcher accompanied by blaring headlines about the viciousness of hockey. Of course serious hockey followers are outraged, but we're not the general public, or more importantly, advertisers/sponsors.

Don't buy it. Matt Cooke is the public personification of everything that is wrong with the NHL in regards to physical play. Cooke and his actions are quite public and become more so every time he takes out another player. The Savard issue was huge in mainstream media with everyone picking it up and making it the poster child for the dangerous circumstances NHL players find themselves in every night they lace them up. That didn't force their hand in suspending Cooke that go around, so I doubt it had much to do with Thornton's.

People like to make Bettman out to be this evil little troll (likely because he looks like one) but it's hardly just him that's the issue. He's simply the public face.

Shawn Thornton did something stupid that couldn't be construed as anything but intentional. That's why he got what he got.

 

[member 96824]

In what universe does an organization think it's ok to allow someone who is intentionally injuring other workers within that organization time after time to keep doing so? I know legally it probably has no teeth, but the next player that gets injured by Cooke should sue the heck out of the NHL for workplace safety violations. I know that hockey is a sport where workers get hurt constantly every night, but they at least deserve the assurance that another worker is not being allowed to be a serial maniac with intent to cause serious injury in the workplace.

Wouldn't even be close to the case....in fact, I pray I never see a situation where a player is suing another player over a knee injury.