NHLPA files grievance on behalf of Mike Richards

[Kin]

This could still result in border crossing issues - and, being that he's being charged on the Canadian side, that would mean the issue would be with getting into the US. So, LA might still have a case.

But that's where I think LA shot themselves in the foot with how they handled this. You're right, if Mike Richards would have a problem with crossing the border then that very well could present a situation where he was materially unable to fulfill his contract. The problem is that would only be grounds for the termination of his contract when and if he was convicted and such a situation actually materialized.

How can LA argue those grounds for terminating his contract when they did so before charges were even filed? I'm pretty sure most independent arbitrators can see through "Well, we figured that in the event that he was charged and in the event that he was convicted and in the event that resulted in visa problems that he'd be unable to play...so we decided to terminate his contract immediately".

 

[CarltonTheBear]

This could still result in border crossing issues - and, being that he's being charged on the Canadian side, that would mean the issue would be with getting into the US. So, LA might still have a case.

Is that something that would happen in a minor drug charge like this? Genuinely don't know. I mean plenty of professional athletes have been caught with drugs before and I've never really heard about it prohibiting their travel. Does the fact that it specifically happened while crossing the border have an effect on that?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

To be fair though, we really don't know what transpired here.  There could be other factors that haven't be revealed yet.

Well I mean we know that he was caught with a few pills in a bottle during a car search while trying to cross the border. I don't really know what other details there could be that would have an impact here.

 

[bustaheims]

Is that something that would happen in a minor drug charge like this? Genuinely don't know. I mean plenty of professional athletes have been caught with drugs before and I've never really heard about it prohibiting their travel. Does the fact that it specifically happened while crossing the border have an effect on that?

Yeah. It happened to a family member of mine. Minor drug offence here, and the charges were actually dropped, but they still can't cross the border into the US. I imagine having it happen at the border would add to the likelihood - it potentially gets looked at as a trafficking violation by the US, which would be a big time no-no. It really could go either way on that right now. Really just a matter of whether or not something ends up in his record that gets him flagged at border crossings. I imagine, since his job requires him to cross the border, they'll likely get something worked out, but you really never know.

 

[Guru Tugginmypuddah]

Don't you guys watch Border Security?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I imagine having it happen at the border would add to the likelihood - it potentially gets looked at as a trafficking violation by the US, which would be a big time no-no.

Yeah I always figured that would have put him in the biggest amount of trouble, but considering the report says it was just a small amount of pills and it was considered for personal use I think he's pretty safe from any trafficking charges.

 

[AvroArrow]

Like Nik said, this loophole doesn't actually exist though. The CBA clearly outlines what has to happen when a team is faced with a player who is abusing drugs/alcohol. And termination isn't one of the steps outlined. There is a very good reason that this area was collectively bargained for, and that's because the life of a NHL player can easily lead to substance abuse. We've obviously seen the worst-case scenarios for something like this more times than we should have (Belak, Rypien, Boogaard). The NHL and the team that a player has a contract with has an obligation to assist these players when they get caught up in this stuff, not toss them to the curb because they're an inconvenience.

The bolded is exactly why I'm calling it a loophole.  The CBA outlines how to handle this, yet a contract can be terminated when a player violates it.  Assuming drug use is considered violating the contract, the CBA says to do one thing, yet the contract allows for termination.  You terminate the contract and you don't have to do what the CBA says.

 

[Kin]

Assuming drug use is considered violating the contract, the CBA says to do one thing, yet the contract allows for termination.

But it's not. Players using drugs isn't cause for termination.

 

[bustaheims]

Yeah I always figured that would have put him in the biggest amount of trouble, but considering the report says it was just a small amount of pills and it was considered for personal use I think he's pretty safe from any trafficking charges.

Possibly, but the US is notoriously harsh when it comes to drug penalties. If Richards gets convicted, he could very well face border issues regardless off the amount. Even if it's not technically trafficking, it could still be enough for them to flag him at the border. And, if they even suspect that he's in any way connected to a larger scheme . . .

 

[bustaheims]

Assuming drug use is considered violating the contract, the CBA says to do one thing, yet the contract allows for termination.

But it's not. Players using drugs isn't cause for termination.

No, but being arrested may be, and being convicted of a criminal act almost certainly is.

 

[Kin]

No, but being arrested may be, and being convicted of a criminal act almost certainly is.

Sure which, again, would make for a strong case if LA had waited for that to happen before terminating the contract.

 

[bustaheims]

No, but being arrested may be, and being convicted of a criminal act almost certainly is.

Sure which, again, would make for a strong case if LA had waited for that to happen before terminating the contract.

For termination because of a conviction, absolutely, however, if simply being arrested is enough, they didn't have to. He was placed under arrest before they terminated his contract.

 

[Kin]

For termination because of a conviction, absolutely, however, if simply being arrested is enough, they didn't have to. He was placed under arrest before they terminated his contract.

I think just being arrested would be a pretty tough sell. Especially when an arbitrator is almost certainly going to first and foremost going to ask why they didn't take a similar action with Voynov. I really doubt that once the pretty obvious fact that LA is primarily motivated by a desire to get out of the contract regardless of this incident is made clear that an arbitrator would be inclined to come down on that side.

Someone can be arrested while doing nothing wrong. Do you really think an arbitrator would say that constitutes a material breach of a contract?

 

[bustaheims]

I think just being arrested would be a pretty tough sell. Especially when an arbitrator is almost certainly going to first and foremost going to ask why they didn't take a similar action with Voynov. I really doubt that once the pretty obvious fact that LA is primarily motivated by a desire to get out of the contract regardless of this incident is made clear that an arbitrator would be inclined to come down on that side.

Maybe. That would really depend on the specific language in the contract and the CBA in regards to termination. If it specifically mentions being arrested as potential grounds for termination, then the arbitrator would have to side with LA, regardless of their decision with Voynov and their motivations. If it's within their rights, it's within their rights, regardless of what they've done in other cases. If it's not so cut and dry, then, yeah, it'll be a tough sell for them.

 

[Kin]

Maybe. That would really depend on the specific language in the contract and the CBA in regards to termination. If it specifically mentions being arrested as potential grounds for termination, then the arbitrator would have to side with LA, regardless of their decision with Voynov and their motivations. If it's within their rights, it's within their rights, regardless of what they've done in other cases. If it's not so cut and dry, then, yeah, it'll be a tough sell for them.

The Forbes article addresses that:

Specifically, the Drug Policy provides that any player arrested on drug charges is required to submit to a substance abuse evaluation and other treatment deemed appropriate by doctors. If the doctors determine that treatment is required, the player will be placed into Stage 1 of the alcohol or drug program. Stage 1 calls for ?inpatient treatment?, although the player continues to get paid.

If a player is convicted of a controlled substance offense (including under a plea arrangement), he is placed into Stage 2 of the drug program. The player is suspended without pay during his treatment and can be reinstated by the league should doctors recommend it.

The most severe discipline called for under the Drug Policy for repeated rehab failures is a one year suspension without pay with reinstatement at the discretion of the league. We do not know all the circumstances surrounding Richards. The starting point, however, is the Drug Policy and its prescribed treatment protocols.

The Drug Policy does not call for the termination of a player contract in the event of an arrest or conviction related to drugs. It calls for a lot less.

 

[bustaheims]

The Forbes article addresses that:

Specifically, the Drug Policy provides that any player arrested on drug charges is required to submit to a substance abuse evaluation and other treatment deemed appropriate by doctors. If the doctors determine that treatment is required, the player will be placed into Stage 1 of the alcohol or drug program. Stage 1 calls for ?inpatient treatment?, although the player continues to get paid.

If a player is convicted of a controlled substance offense (including under a plea arrangement), he is placed into Stage 2 of the drug program. The player is suspended without pay during his treatment and can be reinstated by the league should doctors recommend it.

The most severe discipline called for under the Drug Policy for repeated rehab failures is a one year suspension without pay with reinstatement at the discretion of the league. We do not know all the circumstances surrounding Richards. The starting point, however, is the Drug Policy and its prescribed treatment protocols.

The Drug Policy does not call for the termination of a player contract in the event of an arrest or conviction related to drugs. It calls for a lot less.

The Drug Policy is a separate section, though. His contract may contain specific language that allows the Kings to terminate in this instance, or there could be other sections of the CBA that do. The Drug Policy doesn't overrule these things. It's just one part of what needs to be considered. Also, just because it doesn't call for a player's contract to be terminated doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't allow for it.

 

[Guru Tugginmypuddah]

Smuggling a controlled substance across the border is a serious offence.  If it's for personal use or not.  Even if he had a prescription for it, if it is a controlled substance and he fails to declare it, it's called smuggling. 

 

[bustaheims]

Smuggling a controlled substance across the border is a serious offence.  If it's for personal use or not.  Even if he had a prescription for it, if it is a controlled substance and he fails to declare it, it's called smuggling.

If he has a prescription, it's not smuggling. It's just failure to declare. Smuggling involves intentionally hiding something you're not allowed to have.

 

[Kin]

The Drug Policy is a separate section, though. His contract may contain specific language that allows the Kings to terminate in this instance, or there could be other sections of the CBA that do. The Drug Policy doesn't overrule these things. It's just one part of what needs to be considered. Also, just because it doesn't call for a player's contract to be terminated doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't allow for it.

If a particular violation of the contract allowed a team to terminate a contract than language dealing with that violation, which this specifically does, would mention that. It doesn't. Short of Mike Richards specifically having something in his contract that specially allows for this that seems pretty clear to me.

Until someone actually points to something in the CBA that covers this I'm not sure I'm going to give the Kings here much credit on the "Who knows?" doctrine.

 

[Tigger]

Yeah, I think LA jumped the gun by a wide margin here. I could be wrong but I highly doubt his agent or lawyer would accept clauses that left him vulnerable to a contract termination that somehow gets around the NHL's substance abuse policies ( or even be able to ), which I'm pretty sure is at or near the top of the chain of consideration in this case.