The Union Awakes. . . Maybe

This could have been another Troy Glaus blog. But then he hung 'em up for the season to have surgery.

Just five days after being named in a controversial steroid report.

Must be a weird coincidence or sumthin'. Huh. That SI.com report must have hit him right in the heel.

So, instead, we'll write about the NHL Players' Association. You know, the union you loved to hate until they pretty much either a) decided to get all buddy-buddy with the league or b) lost the will to live.

Well, the union is still around. Still without an executive director, mind you, but still breathing and collecting dues. Evidence of its existence came to light late Wednesday when, in a breathtaking news release, the NHLPA announced it was pretty darn upset about the 15-game suspension handed down to Mark Bell.

For an organization that is desperately in need of an issue that might actually galvanize its membership, this couldn't have come at a better time.

Most NHL players, you see, while upset about the entire Ted Saskin affair, aren't particularly energized enough to actually mobilize. But in this case, the suspension of Bell is a shot across the bow of every NHL player.

There was no precedent for the 15-game ban. Moreover, it piggybacks on top of the indefinite suspension that's part of the NHL-NHLPA substance abuse problem.

Seems to me, and to more than a few union activists, that this is another instance of the NHL simply doing whatever it wants and assuming the union won't raise a fuss.

Well, this time, the NHLPA may actually fight. In the wake of this suspension, it's clear that there are no parameters to the powers Gary Bettman holds in terms of discipline for off-ice transgressions. Moreover, there's potentially a competitive issue if the commish is going to pick and choose which criminal complaint or guilty plea requires league action.

The union would like to know what the rules are going to be. It would also like to know how a rehabilitation program designed not to punish players for admitting to substance issues has now essentially resulted in a lengthy suspension. The trick will be to question the Bell suspension will at the same time being careful not to implicitly condone drinking and driving offences.

Still, the union clearly has an issue here. Now we'll see whether the spirit of Bob Goodenow lives.

---

As the Maple Leafs kick off training camp today with medicals in preparation for a new NHL season, Damien Cox can help you get in game shape with his weekly mailbag which returns Thursday, Sept. 20, in this space. Click here to submit a question.

Comments

[Jim Boyd]

First, it is amazing Bettman actually did something be it questionable.

Second, it is amazing NHLPA actually might react to something Bettman does.........and when somebody suggested hiring a headhunter to find new NHLPA boss, I think they misunderstood the meaning of headhunter,,,,,otherwise why would Lindros be on the committee?

[Julianna/Barrie]

As a hockey fan, what I am most concerned about the suspension levied against Mark Bell, isn't so much the suspension itself as it is that the NHL seems to pick and choose when it wants to punish its players. Where are the suspensions for the Staal brothers? Jay Bouwmeester? Where was the suspension for Danny Heatley? (I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, that Heatley had consumed alcohol that night but he wasn't over the legal limit - and I believe he was still charged with felony vehicular homicide, which in my opinion, is a far worse charge than Bell's) If the NHL wants to crack down on off-ice incidents involving their players, then go for it. But you don't get to pick and choose when to do it. It's either all the time or never. Certain players shouldn't get preferential treatment from the league (*cough* Todd Bertuzzi *cough*) just because they are presumed to be "stars" in the NHL. Everyone from the captain of the team to the journey-man player on the fourth line should be treated the same. That's just my opinion.

[Paul - Belleville]

First, I deplore the notion of supporting drinking & driving, however, in this case I think Bettman has opened a Pandora's box he may wish he had kept shut.

He has no past precedent to cite in this case, but more importantly, he is setting up a challenge to the 'morals' clause in the player's contract. As well, he appears to be making a problem for himself by taking on a 'lesser player' while staying silent on young stars ie Boumeister and the Staals. Yes, in the Bell case a person was injured but what does that have to do with 'morals' - drinking related offenses are drinking related offenses.

Was the CBA not in place when Mr McTavish had his issues years ago? - yes it was, so I think the union has an excellent case of discrimination here.

Go get him Chelios!!!

[Redplague]

This is not Betteman showing "backbone." Whether or not you agree with his decision it is clearly driven by the fact that his opposition (in this case the Player's Union) is currently weak, so, like all weak men, he bullies them in a farcical attempt to look "tough." He has never once shown "backbone"--which would require him to, among other things, stand up to one of his owners or financial partners in the interest of the game--in his entire tenure. This is Betteman once again making grossly egregious strategic blunder for self serving purposes, he will get himself the headlines he so desires--and yet again give the NHL the disastrously negative headlines he so consistently produces.

[Stephen]

I have no problem with the indefinite suspension, since it's important to help/force players to take some time away to deal with their demons, but once that period of time has past and they've completed the program there's absolutely no reason for their suspension on moral grounds. This business of suspending people from playing because the league doesn't like something they've done (whether it's drunk driving or dog fighting) is simply an awful principle.

[Steve Barnett]

Typical comrade Bettman reaction....I wish someone would grab him by those ears of his (and tell me he does not have the biggest ears in civilization) and shake some sense into him.
Mark Bell has had his trial, been convicted and sentenced to jail time. And all you part time lawyers screaming that he should serve his time right away might take note that the prosecutor is on record as stating that Bell recieved the exact same sentence that anyone else would of. Meaning that if it were a truck driver,pizza maker or hockey player they all would of been able to serve thier time as to not impede thier chance of employment. Simply put,he did not recieve preferential treatment. As for Bettman, once again he is siezing the moment to show that he is in charge and will levy any extra punishment he see's fit. Trouble is he ends up looking like the talking dummy sitting on Roger Goodell's knee. The P.A. may indeed have a legal platform to dispute this suspension. Bell has been convicted and sentenced. Bettman has no business piling on and adding more. This is a result of media pressure. If Bell was still a Shark do you think he would of got 15 games on top of everything else? Not a chance. It's all publicity driven plain and simple. And has anyone noticed that the guy he hit had no license and no insurance on the vehicle. Meaning he should of never been on the road. But only in America can you be wrong and still sue someone for it. I know its a technicality but in Canada its probably a big enough technicality to get you off on the charge. Bell should of been charged and convicted period.
To reward someone( the plaintiff) who knowingly breaks the law and suffers for it seems wrong somehow. The Boumeester and Staal camps are probably wondering what the little dictator will do next. Bettman will do whatever he wants to do. But that does'nt make it right.The right thing would of been to let the courts do thier job and Bettman should stick to putting the screws to Canada. After all that is his job isnt it?

[Alex]

Some good comments here, and some complete nonsense, too. (Bell wouldn't have been suspended if he were still a Shark? Right, the world is out to get the Leafs...suuuuuure.....)

My $0.02 worth:

I do agree that Bowmeester should be a candidate for suspension by the League, going by the standard that has been set with Bell, but I disagree with respect to the Staal brothers. They have not been accused of anything even remotely as serious as drunk driving. That incident in Minnesota was, at worst, a bachelor party that went awry, with a few mouthy young guys who didn't shut up when the cops told them to. As far as I'm aware, no one was hurt, and there was no serious chance that anyone could have been. Pretty piddly stuff, especially for two players who are not known as hard-core disciplinary cases.

Some disciplinary consistency is called for, no doubt about it, but lets save the suspensions for the big stuff.

[Wardo]

Why all the fuss? Relax, everybody.

Only marginal players ever get hit with a suspension like this, it's not as whimsical as you think.

Bettman gets to make his statement, "I'm Mr. Tough! No shenanigans are tolerated in the NHL! Beat that, NFL!" and the cost is only taking Bell (frankly, a worthless player) off the board for a few weeks.

It's not like your star players will ever get hit like this, even if they do drink and drive. There would be "mitigating circumstances" of some kind brought to light, and everybody goes home happy, because when justice is required - Bettman is here, swooping out of the Bett cave to exact his vengeance!

Bettman: I'm ringing you up, Bell.

Bell: Oooh, good one, Bettman! You'll never stop me! I'm king of the world!

Bettman: That's Bell-oney. 10 game suspension.

Bell: Oooh, I'm so scared! Don't stop now! I might use this time to start up a dogfighting league in my basement! What are you gonna do about it?

Bettman: Fifteen games, then. The purity of the NHL must be preserved at all costs. Well, at the cost of fringe players. Bettman away! *cape flapping*

[Robert Trifts]

This was criminal activity which had nothing to do with the game of hockey. It is not the subject of suspension. It is the subject of a trial and sentencing by a court of law.

Substance abuse is one thing. That's a suspension aimed at promoting an end to substance abuse. This is aimed at something else: punishment. And that's not the Commissioner of the NHL's damn business.

If the average Joe on the street was "suspended" because he was charged with drinking and driving, this newspaper would be saying that the employer should mind its own damn business of being in business. This paper would say that the criminal charge was for the courts to deal with - and not for private citizens to pretend to correct and deal with.

Bettman should never have done this. This had nothing to do with hockey.

[JR]

I have no problem whatsoever with the suspension against Mark Bell. The problem I have is that there seems to be a discrenpency from the league as to who gets punishment and who doesn't. Gary Bettman said himself that Bell was suspended because he engaged in "conduct deemed to be "dishonorable, prejudicial to or against the welfare of the league or the game of hockey." Okay. Fine. No problem there. What the Staal brothers did, while not as serious as Bell or Bouwmeester, would still be considered, in my opinion, negative for the game of hockey. So it's okay to be drunk and disorderly on the streets as long as your are not behind the wheel of a car? I guess Bettman thinks it's okay for kids to emulate that type of behaviour. If you are going to punish players for off-ice behaviour, fine, go ahead and do it. But remember that what's good for one player in the league, is good for all players in the league. No one should get special treatment or dispensation for their actions. This is treading a fine line and Bettman should be careful he doesn't cross it.

[Drew]

hey people ... it wasn't "just" drunk driving ... it was leaving the scene of an accident too ... pretty serious stuff, by the way ... and, there are precedents for the league dealing with players who have done things "off the ice" too ... Probert, Salming, and a number of other players have been suspended for off-ice actions, and even a few years ago (back when the Leafs were competing for cups) a couple were banned for life for betting on hockey games ... I know that there are some Leafs fans who will always believe that the league is out to get them, but this is not one of those cases ...

[K.Drake]

Typical Bettman. It's unfortunate the league of the best sport has Bettman as it's commissioner. It's kind of like having the doctor who was last in his class do your heart surgury for you.

[Alex]

The hue and cry among Leafs fans is pretty amusing. Most of Leafs Nation wouldn't have given Mark Bell a second thought if he had remained a San Jose Shark. But because he's now a Toronto Maple Leaf, his suspension is suddenly a matter of fundamental justice. What a load of poop. Instead of dumping all over the League, we should ask the Leafs why they were foolish enough to trade for Bell without fully considering the ramifications of his legal problems in California.

I appreciate that Leaf fans are frustrated by this. The home team failed to do its homework, and is now stuck with the dead-weight that is Mark Bell. As usual, the Leafs have no one but themselves to blame. I've always said that Leafs fans deserve much better than they get from the club.

But spare me all the talk about how this is "none of Bettman's damned business", guys. If he played for any other team in the League, people around here would either be completely indifferent to Bell's fate, or--dare I suggest it--they would even be applauding the Commissioner's actions like most of us are. Take off the hometown blinders, Leafs Nation, and see the truth: the Leafs' GM and scouts may not be doing their jobs, but the NHL Commissioner is (for once) doing his.