11/21/24
April 26, 2005
Bertuzzi argues for reinstatement. : In a move that smacks of trying to talk your way into a party after everybody's exited out the back door, taking the keg and chips with them, Todd Bertuzzi will meet with NHL commissioner Gary Bettman today to plead his case for reinstatement to the league.
posted by lil_brown_bat to hockey at 09:00 AM - 42 comments
Is there really a mystery here? The guy is a total thug and a great hockey player. He'll be reinstated. He actualy scores goals.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:53 AM on April 26, 2005
reinstated to be allowed to play in a best-case dormant, worst-case defunct, any-case FUBAR'd professional sports league. Bert, are you sure its worth your time? I wish the owners could lock each other out, because all the League's dysfunctionality can be traced back to that one group of people. Once ownership learns that 'collectively' and 'profitably' aren't mutually exclusive terms, they should be able to right this ship.
posted by garfield at 11:14 AM on April 26, 2005
Putting the fact that I'm a massive Avs fan aside here, I think the whole thing is just a sorry situation. A pre-meditated assault (Bertuzzi was quoted soon after Moore had caused 'Nucks captain Markus Naslund a concussion as saying "That punk won't be playing past March") on another player is both despicable and unacceptable. Yes, I'm sickened by Todd Bertuzzi's words and actions, and it'd be a shame if such a talented power forward was lost to the game. That said though, much as I admire his abilities, I think the only punishment fitting the crime is a lifetime ban. If I broke some guy's neck at my work, they would sack me on the spot. Tell me why The Canucks didn't fire his sorry ass on the spot? Because they put him up to it? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't know. There is no way in hell The Nucks will sack him, so the NHL should do the decent thing and send him packing. I'm sorry, but a ban and a fine is not sufficient punishment for breaking someone's neck and possibly ending his career. Todd's a great player, one I would have loved to see in an Avs shirt before this incident, but I think the only reasonable retribution is to ban this guy from hockey for good. If someone is so badly wired that they'll carry out a pre-meditated attack with the intent to cause grievous harm, there is no place for him in professional sport. Sorry Toddski, but I think your time is up.
posted by Duncan Mathers at 12:24 PM on April 26, 2005
good post! but you hardly managed to look beyond your Av bias. - It's a nice idea to equate punishment with injury, but its completely impractical. If Moore had only suffered a concussion, should Bertuzzi be back when Moore returns a week later? No. - Pre-meditated attacks are nothing unique to this incident, nor unique to hockey. - Bertuzzi has already received the stiffest punishment handed down in recent memory by the NHL: missing the bloody playoffs. And he didn't even use a 'weapon'. -Asking a team to hold its player liable for an injury to an opposing player is a very dangerous precedent to set. Asking the league to excommunicate one of its star players is naive. That's why Moore is suing. I fail to see a cohesive argument supporting a life time ban. Its fair to say you FEEL a lifetime ban is in order, but you didn't convince me.
posted by garfield at 01:19 PM on April 26, 2005
I for one can not stand the Nucks. I totally agree with Duncan. But in my opinion he should be tried for some assult charge a sucker punch and driving Moores head into the ice that is totally different than Moores check on Naslund. I play hockey if somebody ever did that they'd be gone forever. Moore could have been killed I hope you feel like shit Bertuzzi.
posted by HitmanTennis at 02:20 PM on April 26, 2005
I agree with duncan. Myself, being a Stars fan, and a hockey player, i feel pretty bad for Moore. That would suck. I would sue, but im not him.
posted by Jimbob1077 at 04:55 PM on April 26, 2005
Moore is suing in a civil suit. Bertuzzi was charged with assault, and he plead guilty in the criminal proceedings. So Bertuzzi has owned up to his actions, been sanctioned by the League, admitted guilt in a criminal trial, is being sued civilly, but that isn't enough, eh? sure hope you get this much forgiveness and understanding in your own daily lives.
posted by garfield at 05:49 PM on April 26, 2005
sure hope you get this much forgiveness and understanding in your own daily lives. Honestly, garfield, if I had pled guilty to assault -- or been found guilty in a court proceeding -- then I would expect to go to jail. Even in a playground scuffle, simply saying, "Yup, I did it," doesn't let you off the hook for all other consequences.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:43 PM on April 26, 2005
Oh, it wasn't a playground scuffle - it was a hockey game. The severity of the injury has clouded the issue. People getting stomped on in rugby matches, kicked in soccer and the like all are examples of as much gruesome intent. Bertuzzi will/should be suspended for a part of the next season, but he will be reinstated. Given the current climate between the NHLPA and the L, Bertuzzi's popularity, his actual skill level, etc. - expulsion is simply out of the question.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:02 AM on April 27, 2005
llb, I thought about this after I posted last night, and I think the point I failed to make is that Bertuzzi has been punished to the full extent of the law. The full extent of the league's punishment is still up in the air, obviously, but wanting a life time ban seems like a manifestation of a resentment that Bertuzzi has gotten off easy, which he hasn't. Maybe I'm off in my assessment, but what do people want Bertuzzi to do, walk Moore's dog every day? Were Artest and O'Neal prosecuted to the full extent of the law? No. Were they honorable and admit guilt? O'Neal had his suspension by the league reduced by the courts, claiming the suspension was too harsh. Apples and Oranges? Maybe, but we're still talking fruit.
posted by garfield at 08:06 AM on April 27, 2005
One big reason Moore has filed a civil suit is that the courts absolutely bent him over during the criminal proceedings. The man wasn't even allowed to read a victim's impact statement he had written because for whatever reason, the Crown chose to accept Bertuzzi's plea and have the heating the next day, making it impossible for Moore to even attend. You can read more about it here if you so desire. - Pre-meditated attacks are nothing unique to this incident, nor unique to hockey. So that makes them okay? Why should the league allow it to continue? Would you be willing to hire a man for your place of employment you knew was prone to suddenly leave his cubicle and assault you to the point of incapacitation, even if you thought you provoked him? - Bertuzzi has already received the stiffest punishment handed down in recent memory by the NHL: missing the bloody playoffs. And he didn't even use a 'weapon'. Bertuzzi's missing the playoffs did more harm to the Vancouver Canucks than it did to Bertuzzi. As far as I know, all it cost Bertuzzi was his possible playoff share. Tell you what -- since the playoffs are apparently the most important factor, Todd can play in them when Steve does. And at what point does a blindsiding sucker punch with a hockey glove not turn into a "weapon"? Asking the league to excommunicate one of its star players is naive. Why is Bertuzzi's stardom a factor? If this had been some nondescript third-liner, it would have been okay? What if Bertuzzi had broken Peter Forsberg's neck? Then he should be kicked out forever?
posted by wfrazerjr at 08:12 AM on April 27, 2005
Keep in mind that unlike most people's jobs, Bertuzzi has a job where he is allowed to hit people. There are defined penalties for fighting. This isn't even remotely similar to me punching out someone in my office. Things went horribly wrong, Moore was seriously injured, and Bertuzzi has to pay for that. But a lifetime ban? To justify that I think you would have to prove that Bertuzzi wanted to break Moore's neck and make sure he never played again. And I don't think anyone believes that. What if Bertuzzi had broken Peter Forsberg's neck? Then he should be kicked out forever? He said it was naive, not fair. If some third-liner took out Forsberg, he'd probably never play again. Witness the dude that clobbered Gretzky. (And did Pat Quinn ever play again after killing Bobby Orr?) But then look at Scott Stevens. Star power grants you some room to be a dirty bastard.
posted by fabulon7 at 09:39 AM on April 27, 2005
When is a plea not accepted, fraze? I'd say Moore not attending, and getting a chance to read his victim impact statement, is the fault of his counsel, not the court. If there was even a remote possibility that Bertuzzi would plead guilty, Moore's legal team should've planned for such a contingency. Not to mention that reading an impact statement to the court is not a right, nor is it necessary to court proceedings. I don't think he was bent over. What motive is there to bend Moore over? Pre-meditated attacks are not ok. And life time bans are not handed out when premeditation is determined. Should they be? No. This isn't didn't occur in an office environment, fraze, and there is a world of difference. The NHL doesn't have diversity day, and working in my office doesn't include an expectation of physical contact. Bertuzzi was immediately suspended indefinitely, so game checks were lost for the remainder of the season. Bertuzzi also will be paying several millions in CO court to compensate Moore for lost future earnings. And the 'Todd can play when Steve can play' argument I just don't buy. I know it feels like justice, but its a idealistic fantasy. Just try to formulate a realistic policy based around 'eye for an eye.' Torn ligaments will now go to court. And a hockey glove is not a weapon, as far a I know. it is designed to cushion impact. A stick, a bat, now those are weapons. The league is under so much pressure to deliver a product that sells, sells, sells next season, I would find it imprudent not to consider Bertuzzi's status as a factor. Is that right? No.
posted by garfield at 09:44 AM on April 27, 2005
CC on Moore not thinking Bertuzzi should be reinstated
posted by garfield at 09:59 AM on April 27, 2005
llb, I thought about this after I posted last night, and I think the point I failed to make is that Bertuzzi has been punished to the full extent of the law. The full extent of the league's punishment is still up in the air, obviously, but wanting a life time ban seems like a manifestation of a resentment that Bertuzzi has gotten off easy, which he hasn't. Maybe I'm off in my assessment, but what do people want Bertuzzi to do, walk Moore's dog every day? garfield, I understand the point that they went through the court, the court was satisfied, and if what the court handed out wasn't justice, that's not a hockey problem -- and the league shouldn't be trying to make up for some miscarriage of justice by the Crown. As to whether Bertuzzi has gotten off easy, though...according to what standard? The standard of how goonism has been punished in the past? Or the standard that is sane and sensible to have going forward? Yeah, yeah, I know, ex post facto and all that. But you ask, "what do people want Bertuzzi to do, walk Moore's dog every day?", and yeah, I do want him to do something for his victim. He may have cost Moore his livelihood, his health, and his ability to live a normal life. And in return for that, he missed the playoffs. Raise the boats and cry me a river, no, I don't think he's done enough.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:37 AM on April 27, 2005
re-instatement to what? Hockey is done. Fans won't come back. Longer it goes on, the more they are seen as rich arrogant and selfish. NHL will soon return to its roots in Canada with its tail between its legs. USA is probably finished with it and big money days are done. Too bad.
posted by bluekarma at 11:47 AM on April 27, 2005
When did everyone stop trying to do the right thing? Are we all that jaded? Why is it wrong to ask the NHL to stop this horseshit? Todd Bertuzzi is a criminal, and here we are fighting for his right to play. What about the rights of everyone else playing the sport? What do you say to the next guy who gets severely injured in an assault that has absolutely nothing with actually playing the game? Look, Bertuzzi had a job that allowed him contact. It did not allow him to attack people. Making that leap is akin to saying that your company gives you a credit card to charge necessary business expenses, so hell, let's get a Ferrari! It's all good! It's just an extension of the license given to me by the corporation! Also, according to some of the press at the time and this PDF from the Canadian Resource Center for Victims of Crime , it is the right of a victim to read the impact statement. Also, it points out that the deal was done between the Crown and Bertuzzi's defense. Moore's lawyer asked for an adjournment until the original court date and was told to take a leap. I agree that tying a player's suspension to the extent of the injury and recovery is difficult. How is not better, however, than having Todd Bertuzzi return when Steve Moore can't? Why can't there be the expectation in the NHL that if you chase someone down and beat the crap out of them to the point that they are removed from their livelihood, you go too? Simple -- because a vocal group says that's against the code of the game. Well, bullshit. Make an example of Bertuzzi and watch how this crap stops. Would Bertuzzi have done this if he knew he might be out of hockey forever? I don't think so. And if he did it in a blind rage and couldn't stop himself, he shouldn't be on the ice in the first place. I'll let a statement from the IIHF say it best: "The violent nature of Mr. Bertuzzi's action with the severe injuries inflicted to the opposing player, as a result of his deliberate act, were regarded as an extremely serious violation of the rules, putting the sport into disrepute," the federation said in a statement. Why in hell would anyone bring a guy like that back?
posted by wfrazerjr at 12:18 PM on April 27, 2005
How is admitting guilt not justice or an error by the Crown? If he had plead not guilty, and everyone got a trial, would that be justice? Not to be insensitive, but what I think is wanted is a lynching, so to speak. Moore will be very well taken care of monetarily if his suit isn't thrown out of CO courts. He'll be well taken care of if the suit moves to B.C. I think that is enough. You make a valid point about the standard. But no league will ever impose a life ban on a player (unless something unimaginable happens) simply because it is unprofitable, and conversely keeping a 'villain' around is profitable. Not to praise Mark Cuban, but his point about Kobe's little run-in being good for the NBA translates to other leagues. Going forward, I'm glad I'm not Colin Campbell. However, I will add that 'eye for an eye' doesn't work evidenced by such a system not already existing, but injuries should be measured when determining punishment. Most importantly, the act should be primary, as acts have unintended consequences (no injury vs. severe injury), but acts are where the onus lies. [on preview] fraze, thanks for learning me about victim impact statements, the actual proceedings. I didn't stay abreast of this story during its entire life-cycle. Why were they meeting before the original court date? Can't pleas be entered at any time? He is a criminal, but criminals aren't branded for life and are given the chance to rehabilitate. at least i think that is how the theory still goes. An expectation of physical violence and license to assault someone are not one in the same. However this expectation carries with is risk of injury. I'm not saying injury by assault is then ok, but its not far from the job description.
posted by garfield at 12:35 PM on April 27, 2005
How is admitting guilt not justice or an error by the Crown? You're veering sharply into the realm of deliberate obfuscation, garfield. I'll spell it out once more: the miscarriage of justice/error is not in the guilty plea, it's in a so-called "guilty plea" that carries with it absolutely no consequences whatsoever. As I said above: Honestly, garfield, if I had pled guilty to assault -- or been found guilty in a court proceeding -- then I would expect to go to jail. Even in a playground scuffle, simply saying, "Yup, I did it," doesn't let you off the hook for all other consequences. So he said he's guilty. Big deal. Big fat punishment. He said he's guilty, and if he plays by the rest of the not-even-a-wrist-slap rules, he won't even get a criminal record. So what message does that send? "Yeah, I said I was guilty, cuz I got a good lawyer who worked this great deal where if I said I was guilty, I wouldn't get any actual punishment, and in a few years, if I was a good boy, they'd rip up the documents that said I was guilty." As for Moore's being taken care of financially, that remains to be seen. I don't know Bertuzzi's finances, and I don't know if Moore were awarded every red cent Bertuzzi owns -- and that shyster Bertuzzi's got working for him somehow didn't manage to find a weasel-route out of the civil suit -- that that would be enough to pay for beer nuts, much less see him "very well taken care of". But let's look at it from another POV: say you have something that you love to do very much, and one day, some goon beats you senseless and injures you so that you can't ever do it again. And then they hand you a suitcase of money and say, "There's your justice, now shut up." Would you feel that you'd been fully compensated? Maybe not. You ask if Bertuzzi ought to walk Moore's dog, and that's ironic, because yeah, I think my own sense of justice does find more satisfaction in a more personal form of victim restitution. If it happened that Moore could no longer walk his own dog, then yeah, that might be just the ticket.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:16 PM on April 27, 2005
So what if they offer to reinstate Bertuzzi with the condition that if he ever gets suspended again (for something violent), he's out of the league? Would that be a good compromise?
posted by fabulon7 at 01:36 PM on April 27, 2005
I've noticed that the comments here seem to be ither for, or against a lifetime ban for Betruzzi. There doesn't seem to be much of an issue about Bertuzzi being suspended for the playoffs last year (except maybe among some Canucks fans). Yes, this was a harsh punishment (by NHL standards) in and of itself, but other than that, what has Bertuzzi's punishment consisted of?? No pay? Welcome to strike/lockout... nobody is getting their usual paycheck. Bertuzzi hasn't missed any more games this year than other players. Do you really think he's served his time? Why didn't he apply for reinstatement right after the Canucks were eliminated from the playoffs? Does it make a difference how much time passes if there are no games being played?
posted by marley at 02:04 PM on April 27, 2005
no consequences = probation (80 hours community service, avoid Moore on the ice, stay out of trouble) + compensatory damages + indefinite suspension. fab7, I like the idea, though the suspension trigger of the ban would need further definition.
posted by garfield at 02:14 PM on April 27, 2005
Last time I checked, or legal system was not based on a ruling from the "crown". Let his sorry ass stay in Canada and make a living there. Better yet I'd like to see another year without hockey. Maybe then he could play on the owners team.
posted by volfire at 02:58 PM on April 27, 2005
Garf, the last two of your three "consequences" haven't been decided yet. Probably more accurate to just stick with "Probation" and "Suspended for the Playoffs" for now. Just sayin'.
posted by Samsonov14 at 03:17 PM on April 27, 2005
So what if they offer to reinstate Bertuzzi with the condition that if he ever gets suspended again (for something violent), he's out of the league? Would that be a good compromise? That would be a great solution, except what does that do for the next guy that Bertuzzi puts out of the league on a permanent basis? Do we need another broken neck to get this stopped?
posted by wfrazerjr at 03:20 PM on April 27, 2005
sammy, I'm suspending my disbelief in the justice system...and its "suspended for remainder of the regular season and the Playoffs." just sayin' I think there is little doubt the civil suit will compensate Moore handsomely. fraze, if the league implemented a 2 strike rule, it gives the next unfortunate victim a clear avenue of recourse within the league and a precedent for the courts. It doesn't give back what can't be returned, but its the next best thing.
posted by garfield at 04:01 PM on April 27, 2005
Garf, the last two of your three "consequences" haven't been decided yet. Probably more accurate to just stick with "Probation" and "Suspended for the Playoffs" for now. Just sayin'. Furthermore, you're talking about "consequences" from two different sources. It doesn't make any sense to conflate them: the legal outcome and the league discipline are, or damn well should be, completely unconnected. Got any info on his community service -- like, has he actually done any of it, and if so, what service has he performed? I mean, sorry, I know that you feel the guy did his time, only he didn't do any time. 80 hours of "community service" means you get to sleep at home every night, you get to eat steak and eggs for breakfast if you want, you're in no way a prisoner. Not even close to a night in the drunk tank, IMO.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 05:55 PM on April 27, 2005
consequences are not counted by who doles them out. consequences are counted by who they impact. that's why they are consequences. I don't have details on his community service. Maybe a Vancouver local has some stories about him playing in charity hockey games, or giving out gifts, or something. All I know is that in and around Vansterdam, Bertuzzi is a role model type celebrity, the perfect fit for community service, which I'm sure he was doing on his on volition. anyhoo, after seeing fraze's well-written article that I agree with in part, I went and talked hockey with a smokin' buddy of mine. We came up with a 2-strike rule, with a two part trigger; (a) career-ending injury caused by a (b) cheap shot/carelessness/non-legal hit, combining the act with the injury. First strike : Offending player must pay a % of his salary, for the remainder of his own career, to the injured player who can no longer play professional hockey. Basically hit 'em where it hurts...for a long time. Second strike : You're out. Period. This rule would've applied to Berard/Hossa, Domi/Neidermayer, etc. Had Neidermayer been unable to continue his career, Domi would be donating part of his salary for the remainder of his career. In the Berard/Hossa case, Hossa would've been chipping in to help the Berard household, but since Berard chose to comeback after suffering a career-ending injury, Hossa would be let off the hook, after paying Berard's legal fees. Money given to the injured is non-returnable, even if the injured decides to play again.
posted by garfield at 08:18 AM on April 28, 2005
consequences are not counted by who doles them out. consequences are counted by who they impact. that's why they are consequences. You're playing word games. I think you will have to admit that league discipline and legal consequences are two completely different matters, exactly as I explained above: in considering charges of assault, the court does not and should not factor in how many games Bertuzzi was suspended, for example. That being the case, the rhetorical question, "Hasn't he been punished enough???" is revealed as the absurdity that it is. Who doles it out does matter, for the simple and sufficient reason that the NHL and the courts have different areas of authority and responsibility. The NHL is responsible for maintaining good order and discipline within the league and the games played in the league, and the court is responsible for maintaining good order in society at large -- and the same act can (and in this case does) represent two different offenses, one against the good order of the game and one against society. Punishment for the one offense does not pay for both.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:06 AM on April 28, 2005
No word games. Just using a common denominator: Bertuzzi. Here, I'll put it to you nice and simple : Who do consequences affect? ding ding ding. That's right, the affected, or in this case, the punished. We are still talking about Bertuzzi's punishment, right? Speaking of absurdity, I doubt 'games missed' had anything to do with the Crown's decision. It probably had alot to do with Todd being a respected citizen in the community, no prior criminal record...you know, the usual. And really, I don't know what you are reading, but nowhere have I even glanced at the idea that missing games is adequate punishment in the eyes of the league and the court.
posted by garfield at 09:43 AM on April 28, 2005
There is only one way to settle this:..... Dance off.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 10:49 AM on April 28, 2005
Here, I'll put it to you nice and simple : Who do consequences affect? ding ding ding. That's right, the affected, And a tautology is a tautology, and so what? Stating a tautology doesn't create a connection where none exists. The only place where your "common denominator" has any meaning in discussing the consequences to Bertuzzi of his actions is in the pity party that you're trying to throw on his behalf. And, pardon me, but so what? You're the one who asked what more we thought Bertuzzi should suffer as punishment. For some foolish reason, I thought you meant -- let's use your own word -- consequences, actual real life consequences. So I answered your question, understanding that in real life, real punishments are handed down by agencies with real authority, and that in real life, getting punished by one authority doesn't get you a "get out of jail free" card with others, as you seem to think it should. The only place where his suspension should earn him any "credit" against his villainy account is in the arena where he paid those dues: in the NHL.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:55 AM on April 28, 2005
Without weighing in on Bertuzzi's penalty or lack there of, I'd just like to point out this is yet another area where the NHL needs to learn from the NFL. You may disagree with the NFL's definition of dangerous play (chop block anyone), but the NFL does a much better job of policing the act rather than the consequences. Hockey's problem is that they police the consequences rather than the act. If Moore had just bounced back up, I suspect that the NHL would have just slapped Bertuzzi on the wrist and let things go. Compare this to the NFL's practice of escalating fines leading up to suspension.
posted by offsides at 10:56 AM on April 28, 2005
getting punished by one authority doesn't get you a "get out of jail free" card with others, as you seem to think it should just quote where i state this. i dare you. and sorry for the tauting, I figured you'd put it together. consequence : the outcome of an event especially as relative to an individual. [on preview] offisdes, great point!
posted by garfield at 11:06 AM on April 28, 2005
posted by garfield at 11:18 AM on April 28, 2005
Even the link on the probation issue/conditional discharge sentence that Garfield included above includes the phrase: "I say this because I cannot imagine a conditional discharge being granted to a non-hockey player following such a deliberate assault that caused such long-term injuries to its victim..." So, I don't think his criminal "consequence" was without controversy. I'm not sure about in Canada, but restitution is often an element of criminal sentencing in the U.S. (as is the reading of victim impact statements at the sentencing). Not only that but in a case of an assault causing serious bodily harm, the prosecution (Crown Attorney) should usually run a lenient sentence deal by the victim first to avoid some of the controversy. The league, if/when it exists again, can do what it wants without considering the other two consequences. All three are intertwined: criminal consequences, civil consequences and professional consequences. He's already scored a sweetheart deal on his criminal consequences; he'll likely get dinged pretty heavily monetarily on the civil consequences (especially with the severity of Moore's injuries); but with a reinstatement he comes out not so bad on the professional consequences...so he takes two out of three despite what he did, right?
posted by chris2sy at 02:11 PM on April 28, 2005
garfield quotes me: getting punished by one authority doesn't get you a "get out of jail free" card with others, as you seem to think it should [emphasis added] and replies: just quote where i state this. i dare you. "Dare me"? I never said that those were your exact words; I said that appears to be what you think, based on putting together what you said. Let's set the way-back machine and look at your comments earlier in this thread: Moore is suing in a civil suit. Bertuzzi was charged with assault, and he plead guilty in the criminal proceedings. So Bertuzzi has owned up to his actions, been sanctioned by the League, admitted guilt in a criminal trial, is being sued civilly, but that isn't enough, eh? Now, that implies to me that you think all of this "punishment" is part of one big pool ("that isn't enough, eh?"). My point to you is that no, it isn't, and his dinky little wrist-slap in criminal court shouldn't get him a sympathy pass from the league. Make sense?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:07 AM on April 29, 2005
llb, ok. i think we understand eachother. I have no idea why punishing an individual must be separated into who does what punishing. I think that idea is, in essence, backwards. About the 'wrist-slap', my point is that I don't think the league will 'sympathize' with Bertuzzi, but the criminal case has run its course, the league can't ask the court to re-try the case, and he shouldn't be punished further because he got a good lawyer. I'm sure the league will consider the criminal proceedings, but evaluating the merit of the Crown's decisions probably isn't high on the League's agenda, nor should it be. But throwing a big wrench into my weighting of this situation, the CO court settlement which I assumed would compensate Moore properly may not get off the ground. This isn't news, per se, but it is picking up momentum.
posted by garfield at 11:22 AM on April 29, 2005
Legal analyst Rob Becker didn't do so hot on this question way back when: But prison time? Come on. Could a professional athlete, being tried in a community that hails him as a hero, actually be sentenced to prison time? He should have answered: "No way, eh" to that question. But perhaps he is correct on the civil suit issues. Colorado's forum non conveniens statute looks pretty clear, as of August 2004...but you never know. I think: (1) the Colorado judge should dismiss for inconvenient forum; (2) the B.C. Court should throw out the Canucks Statement of Claim/Declaratory action (sounds like quite the novel preemptive attempt); and (3) Moore should go file up in the B.C. Courts, if he can, and they can go from there...but we'll see what happens.
posted by chris2sy at 01:04 PM on April 29, 2005
llb, ok. i think we understand eachother. I have no idea why punishing an individual must be separated into who does what punishing. I think that idea is, in essence, backwards. It makes sense to me, because the state and a sports league have differing authorities. Think about it as the difference between a workplace and general civil society. Your employer can control some aspects of your behavior, the state can control others, and while there's some overlap, the rationale and the justification for the control is different. Thus, if you punch out a co-worker, your workplace will probably fire you, and will have one set of justifications for doing so...and the state may bring charges of assault against you, and will have a different set of justifications. About the 'wrist-slap', my point is that I don't think the league will 'sympathize' with Bertuzzi, but the criminal case has run its course, the league can't ask the court to re-try the case, and he shouldn't be punished further because he got a good lawyer. I'm sure the league will consider the criminal proceedings, but evaluating the merit of the Crown's decisions probably isn't high on the League's agenda, nor should it be. Actually, my argument is that they shouldn't consider it, either as a mitigating factor or to push them in the direction of a more severe punishment. Whatever the outcome of the criminal case, and whatever they think about it, the NHL shouldn't try to compensate for it. They are solving a different problem, that of whether they want this guy to still be in the league (such as it is), and what kind of message they want to send to their players about how this kind of conduct is/isn't tolerated.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:20 PM on April 29, 2005
Maybe Bertuzzi will sucker punch Bettman and somehow that will get everybody to agree to a new CBA and next season will start on time.