Perezhogin Suspended One Year

[habwest]

What NWTHF said. I fully support it; he could have killed the guy.

Even if Bertuzzi gets off with a lighter suspension it doesn't mean what was done in Perezhogin's case was wrong, rather it means that the NHL didn't get it right for Bertuzzi. In which case I'll harp about what wasn't done for Bertuzzi but I won't complain about what Perezhogin got.

I think that Bo has a point as well. Any league that doesn't deal with the provocations, by "letting them play" in Cherry's words, will not successfully address the problem. I'd also add that it has to be a systemic approach as well. That includes

- looking at what is now within the rules and possibly moving some of those actions, eg currently legal checks to the head, to the out of bounds category

- calling the rules that already exist

- clamping down on refs who don't call the rules, eg fines, suspensions. If the League went back to a one ref system that should give them enough flexability so that they don't have to worry about disciplining or firing some refs

- clamping down on players, coaches and GMs yapping at the refs or talking retribution through penalties and fines

- developing a defined set of follow on penalties (ie to what is handed out within a game) for offenses so everybody knows what the consequences will be, eg three major infractions and you sit out x number of games, repeat offenders sit out twice as many games etc, etc.

Chances of something like this happening- 0

[ethan]

Giving a player, with no past of violent offenses (not one major the entire year!!!), a year suspension, plus the entire playoffs (which really amounts to a second season), for a retaliatory action is definitely, imo, way too harsh. The punishment in this case does not fit the crime, period. Perezhogin is being used as a scapegoat for the growing negative image hockey is building as a result of these types of actions, and that is not right.

Yes, he could have killed him, but he didn't, nor did he even intend to hit him in the head... on the other hand, the other guy swung, while facing him, and DELIBERATELY tried to take off his head... In the real world, Stafford would be facing the same if not stiffer legal penalties... He acted first and he acted with more criminal intent (swinging a stick at someone's head is far worse than swinging at their legs).

I'm sorry, but justice in this case has not been served.... Perez has gone from "criminal" to victim in my books, and I really hope that Gainey and the habs/bulldogs appeal this case...
as gainey said, i'm in SHOCK...

[AH]

Mr. said:

I would say no, since although Perezhogin was playing in Hamilton he is under contract to and therefore an employee of the Montréal Canadiens.

Further, I believe that the IIHF has honoured suspensions meted out by North American professional hockey leagues. I don't see why they would want to see their leagues become safe havens for those fleeing punishment.

It wouldn't be the first time.

Read here.

www.phantomshockey.com/pressbox/PreGamePressNotes/777.asp

Siklenka Returns But Can’t Play Yet: Right wing Mike Siklenka was claimed off waivers by the Flyers from the New York Rangers and assigned back to the Phantoms on Wednesday. Siklenka, who appeared in 64 games with the Phantoms last season, was claimed by the Rangers in the NHL Waiver Draft back on Oct. 3. He only played in one game with New York before getting sent to the Hartford Wolf Pack on Oct. 31 for a conditioning assignment. But Siklenka was not able to suit up for Hartford, as he continued to serve a five-game suspension he received last April 10 due to a match penalty he was assessed during a game vs. Hershey six days earlier. The 6-5 Siklenka still has one game remaining on his suspension, so he won’t be eligible to play for the Phantoms until tomorrow in Hershey.

In essence, he spent the first four games at the NHL level, but was sent down before game 5 in the AHL was played. As a result, he needed to sit out that one game before suiting up in the AHL.

Perezhogin will be in the NHL next season .

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

AH said:

It wouldn't be the first time.

Read here.

www.phantomshockey.com/pressbox/PreGamePressNotes/777.asp

In essence, he spent the first four games at the NHL level, but was sent down before game 5 in the AHL was played. As a result, he needed to sit out that one game before suiting up in the AHL.

Perezhogin will be in the NHL next season .

If that truly turns out to be the case the AHL should have banned Perezhogin for life.

[AH]

Mr. said:

If that truly turns out to be the case the AHL should have banned Perezhogin for life.

The reason I think the suspension was so severe and ONE-SIDED (this is what really pisses me off) is that they are fully aware that Perezhogin is more than likely to be playing in the NHL anyways. They made an example out of the kid for their own cause.

There is no other explanation for the one-sidedness. The difference for swinging a stick at someone's head and missing vs swinging and connecting is 66 games ? Thats some messed up logic.

[HabeasCorpus]

The reality is simple: Any sport that permits and encourages the type of body contact that exists, even within the rules, is by definition, a violent sport. As anyone who has played the game knows, there’s only so much hooking, jabbing, spearing, slashing and hitting you can take before you lose your temper. When the adrenaline is flowing in the heat of battle, men react physically and instinctually. Over and over again we teach, tell, pray that our players will give us their guts, their hearts and their every single ounce of effort on every shift. We praise the hitting, the tough physical play of guys who sacrifice their bodies for the benefit of the team. We call them warriors. People, professional hockey has always been that way. I’ve actually asked old-timers from as far back as the ‘40’s about the level of violence in comparison to the modern game and the response is fairly unanimous. Guys swung their sticks, ran guys from behind and broke the rules in equal instance. The fact that we have 30 teams in the NHL and another 28 in the AHL merely serves as numerical support in the law of averages. Having said this, swinging a stick is of course, an ugly display at best.

However, comparing the McSorley or Bertuzzi incidents to Perezhogin’s is plain wrong. As discussed within these posts, Perezhogin’s offense was not premeditated. The others clearly were. While I will not say that Perezhogin was acting in self defense, he was clearly retaliating with what I’ll call “equal force”. There is a common thread of law in self defense (in many U.S. States) that permits one to defend himself, regardless of outcome of that action, as long as there was no escalation of force in that act. Obviously, you must try to avoid further conflict or confrontation if you can, but if you cannot reasonably escape such circumstances, you are permitted to defend yourself. In the hockey rink, under the guise of rules and within the parameters of normal conduct of a professional athlete, there isn’t as much precedent or law to go by. Nevertheless, just because you end up inflicting more damage on your assailant using equal force shouldn’t warrant any tougher a penalty on you. His intentions were not to cause injury. His actions were not premeditated, and his reputation and track record do not suggest that he is violent or that he has disregard for the rules of the sport he plays. What he did was wrong, surely. There is no place for it in hockey, no matter how many people will argue that professional hockey isn’t exactly a civilized sport. What makes me mad is that this incident was magnified by the media to the extent that the AHL basically caved in to the type of pressure politicians frequently find themselves giving way to. I cannot believe for a moment that the NHL had no hand in the verdict, in light of the recent dreadful Bertuzzi coverage. Furthermore, for those that want to penalize people based on what could have happened instead of what actually did happen, I suggest that there’s a great many of us who have breathed a sigh of relief in the past. I do not condone what Perezhogin did, but handing a one year suspension down to him in light of the circumstances is absolutely excessive.

[PTH]

Doc_Holliday said:

I am totally ok with it. It's the kind of punishment I want to see for this kind of action. I wish there will be more of it.

As BC said, every hockey fans whines about the leagues not being severe anough, but when their own player need to face the consequence, than suddenly it's always too much.

I agree, with the proviso that other infractions need to be called just as harshly. Bertuzzi should be gone for next season as well (premeditated action by a guy with a bad track record), and future infractions need to be punished harshly.

McSorley essentially was forced to retire ("lifetime ban"), Zhogin gets pushed into the NHL (he's still NHL-eligible, though the NHL has to give permission * ).... tough penalties seem to only come when a player won't actually have to deal with them...

* source: RDS.ca over on:http://rds.ca/canadien/chroniques/HOCKEYLNHCAN409BB1B9.html
"Cette suspension n'empêcherait pas toutefois Perezhogin de jouer pour le Canadien l'an prochain. La Ligue Nationale de hockey devrait néanmoins donner son aval pour lui permettre de jouer dans son circuit malgré la suspension. " He can play in the NHL next season, but the NHL would have to allow him in, it's not a slam-dunk.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

AH said:

The reason I think the suspension was so severe and ONE-SIDED (this is what really pisses me off) is that they are fully aware that Perezhogin is more than likely to be playing in the NHL anyways. They made an example out of the kid for their own cause.

There is no other explanation for the one-sidedness. The difference for swinging a stick at someone's head and missing vs swinging and connecting is 66 games ? Thats some messed up logic.

Interesting take, AH.

[del]

Don Meehan???

Well there is the answer. I'm sure Don will have Perezhogin legally change his name to Lex Perogie and argue that he is not the same person listed on the suspension papers.

Alex Perezhogin sits out the suspension; Don engineers a fat contract for Lex Perogie, who promptly goes into the tank the following year.

This has happened before...well, maybe not the name change!

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

HabeasCorpus said:

The reality is simple: Any sport that permits and encourages the type of body contact that exists, even within the rules, is by definition, a violent sport. As anyone who has played the game knows, there’s only so much hooking, jabbing, spearing, slashing and hitting you can take before you lose your temper. When the adrenaline is flowing in the heat of battle, men react physically and instinctually. Over and over again we teach, tell, pray that our players will give us their guts, their hearts and their every single ounce of effort on every shift. We praise the hitting, the tough physical play of guys who sacrifice their bodies for the benefit of the team. We call them warriors. People, professional hockey has always been that way. I’ve actually asked old-timers from as far back as the ‘40’s about the level of violence in comparison to the modern game and the response is fairly unanimous. Guys swung their sticks, ran guys from behind and broke the rules in equal instance. The fact that we have 30 teams in the NHL and another 28 in the AHL merely serves as numerical support in the law of averages. Having said this, swinging a stick is of course, an ugly display at best.

However, comparing the McSorley or Bertuzzi incidents to Perezhogin’s is plain wrong. As discussed within these posts, Perezhogin’s offense was not premeditated. The others clearly were. While I will not say that Perezhogin was acting in self defense, he was clearly retaliating with what I’ll call “equal force”. There is a common thread of law in self defense (in many U.S. States) that permits one to defend himself, regardless of outcome of that action, as long as there was no escalation of force in that act. Obviously, you must try to avoid further conflict or confrontation if you can, but if you cannot reasonably escape such circumstances, you are permitted to defend yourself. In the hockey rink, under the guise of rules and within the parameters of normal conduct of a professional athlete, there isn’t as much precedent or law to go by. Nevertheless, just because you end up inflicting more damage on your assailant using equal force shouldn’t warrant any tougher a penalty on you. His intentions were not to cause injury. His actions were not premeditated, and his reputation and track record do not suggest that he is violent or that he has disregard for the rules of the sport he plays. What he did was wrong, surely. There is no place for it in hockey, no matter how many people will argue that professional hockey isn’t exactly a civilized sport. What makes me mad is that this incident was magnified by the media to the extent that the AHL basically caved in to the type of pressure politicians frequently find themselves giving way to. I cannot believe for a moment that the NHL had no hand in the verdict, in light of the recent dreadful Bertuzzi coverage. Furthermore, for those that want to penalize people based on what could have happened instead of what actually did happen, I suggest that there’s a great many of us who have breathed a sigh of relief in the past. I do not condone what Perezhogin did, but handing a one year suspension down to him in light of the circumstances is absolutely excessive.

Well said.

The NHL/AHL are reactive rather than proactive. They mete out lazy-boy sentences by addressing the effect rather than preventing the cause. One thinks that at one point the realization of the rule book's purpose and ultimate utility will dawn upon someone in power. Presently, in terms of providing justice they are truly blind.

Rule 50 Cross-Checking

A cross-check shall mean a check rendered with both hands on the stick, and the extending of the arms, while the check is being delivered.

(a) A minor or major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee, shall be imposed on a player who "cross-checks" an opponent.

When a major penalty is assessed for cross-checking, an automatic game misconduct penalty shall be imposed on the offending player.

(b) When a major penalty is imposed under this Rule, an automatic fine of one hundred dollars ($100) shall also be imposed.

*

Much too much leeway written in above after the definition of the foul. IMO there should be a more absolute defintion in place, such as follows:

Rule 50 Cross-Checking

A cross-check shall mean a check rendered with both hands on the stick, and the extending of the arms, while the check is being delivered.

(a) A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who "cross-checks" an opponent.

When a major penalty is assessed for cross-checking, an automatic game misconduct penalty shall be imposed on the offending player.

(b) When a major penalty is imposed under this Rule, an automatic fine of one hundred dollars ($100) shall also be imposed.

*

Eliminate the referee's discretion and direct him to call the game "by the book", or else. The interpretive analysis approach is allowing situations to escalate to the Stafford/Perezhogin stage.

[Strummerman]

This is nonsense. There is no comparison with what Bertuzzi did and Perezhogin. Bertuzzi was a premeditated act. Maybe he didnt realize that the injury would have occured but it was premeditated. As for Alex, he was reacting instinctively to almost being hit by a stick. That happens almost all the time in games and almost all the time there is no contact. Unfortunately, I think Perez hit him by pure chance. The sentence is ridiculous. He should get less than Bertuzzi

[BadCompany]

Well, we still don't know what Bertuzzi's "final" sentence will be. If he gets two years, does that make Perezhoghin's "more right?"

Personally, I agree with HabsWest. Just because the NHL gets it wrong all the time, doesn't mean that the AHL can't get it right. I heard on the radio (no link to prove its veracity) that AHL commissioner Dave Andrews consulted with NHL commissioner Gary Betteman before making his decision. This is both a positive, and a negative sign:

Negative, in that it means we can forget seeing Perezhoghin for a little while. As per PTH's link, the NHL has to approve Perezhoghin's return, and if Betteman was just going to rubber stamp it, I doubt Andrews would have given such a stiff sentence. He knows the NHL is his bread and butter, and he isn't going to embarrass them by handing out a one year suspension, if the NHL has no plans to honor it.

Positive, it means that Betteman *hopefully* is on the same page. That means he is all for stiffer sentences, and I *hope* it means we won't be seeing Bertuzzi for a minimum of 40 games (if there is a) next year. For what its worth, Stephen Brunt of the Globe and Mail thinks this suspension means Bertuzzi won't play next year either. Speculation, of course.

We all agree that hockey has to clean itself up. Not just the ugly incidents, but the clutch and grab, "garage league" hockey we have seen for the last decade. This is a step. Sucks that it has to be on Perezhoghin's back, but what are you going to do? Now, will the NHL follow up on it? Here's hoping...

Somebody should take note of that referee's name, and see if he is back in the AHL next year. I'd bet he will quietly just disappear...

[BadCompany]

Also, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if this is appealed, and dropped down to 50-60 games...

Bobby G, standing by his players, big and small...

[foodfight]

You have to put everything in context. The game had got out of hand, Perez was a target, and he was crosschecked viciously in the back just before the incident. One year? Fine. Stafford gets six games? That's a joke. If the AHL had wanted to do something productive out of this, they would have suspended Stafford for six months. That would of sent a message saying stick swinging by anyone will not be tolerated.

This one year suspension is the result of significant media exposure. This is a public relations stunt - nothing more.

[PTH]

BadCompany said:

Well, we still don't know what Bertuzzi's "final" sentence will be. If he gets two years, does that make Perezhoghin's "more right?"

Absolutely. I have no problem seeing tough suspensions against our guys as long as they're applied to others, as well. I want consistency. If there is consistency, then we can be mad at the player, not the suspension. These days, it's usually pretty easy to justify any position (ie, need for lesser or harsher sentence) based on past calls (which have been wildly inconsistent)

[JohnnyVerdun]

I don't have a problem with coming down hard on a guy who uses his stick recklessly, and I don't have a problem with holding him responsible for the unintended consequences of his actions, but this is taking it a little too far. Perezhogin's slash wasn't nearly as psychotic as Bertuzzi's attack on Moore. A thirty or even forty game suspension would have sent the message; suspending him for the entire season is just ludicrous. That would be the appropriate sentence if AP had lined up Stafford and two-handed him in the head. But that's not what happened.

[MadRookie]

clan said:

Not enough.
If IwereAHL commisioner I would have banned him for LIFE.
1year is not nearly enough.
He could just as easily KILLED him .
Perogi is lucky he got off as lightly as he did.
He should have been banned from all North American Pro hockey leagues.

Yeah Clan, let's get our white bed sheets and go after this commie.

I'll round up some fellers in my trailer park and join up with you and your pappy.

[CentreHice]

Listening to the Round Table discussion on the Fan 590 on the way home. Damien Cox, with whom I usually agree, was way off base IMO. Everyone else on the panel was saying that Stafford's 6-games amounts to saying that swinging your stick at someone's head and missing is okay. They said if Perezhogin gets a year, Stafford should have gotten 20 games.

Cox said, "But he didn't hit Perezhogin...he missed him. He swung at air." The other guys pounced on him.
I'm beginning to think that Cox was either deliberately trying to stir up the conversation, or his head is full of the same air he said Stafford was swinging at.

In the news updates, it's being reported that, while Perezhogin's act was rightly called a "baseball bat swing", it was wrongly stated that "Garrett Stafford received 6 games for his initial high stick that missed."

High stick?

Never in the course of discussion was any mention made of the events (Stafford's crosscheck, etc) that led up to the play, or of the referee for letting everything escalate to that point.

As I've stated before, I think Perezhogin deserved the year for what he did, he could have killed the guy. But Stafford could have killed Perezhogin with his attempted temple shot too. To hear Damien Cox say, "But he missed," is tantamount to what is wrong with hockey right now.

It's the same as Leafs' fans beaming over Gary Roberts' numerous uncalled cross-checks to Keith Primeau's back in Game 6. Or their gloating over Tucker's charge/head shot on Kapanen in OT. Andy Van Hellemond was a guest on Leafs' Lunch today and he said it should have been called. (even though we're all secretly glad it wasn't called...as Roenick scored while the Leafs and their fans were still admiring the hit ;D). You'd be hard-pressed to find one Leaf fan who will say that hit was dirty. In fact, it made their highlights of the year. Meanwhile, you got head Leaf cheerleader/broadcaster Joe Bowen fuming that Handzus "slashed" Mats Sundin in the chin earlier in OT.

[IamCanadiens]

CentreHice said:

I think Perezhogin deserved the year for what he did, he could have killed the guy. But Stafford could have killed Perezhogin with his attempted temple shot too.

Couldn't agree more. Additionally, I think Stafford's suspension is too light. This and the Bertuzzi incident, are demonstrating that the leagues are basing suspensions on severity of injury and ugliness of incident.

[jkr]

CentreHice said:

Listening to the Round Table discussion on the Fan 590 on the way home. Damien Cox, with whom I usually agree, was way off base IMO. Everyone else on the panel was saying that Stafford's 6-games amounts to saying that swinging your stick at someone's head and missing is okay. They said if Perezhogin gets a year, Stafford should have gotten 20 games.

Cox said, "But he didn't hit Perezhogin...he missed him. He swung at air." The other guys pounced on him.
I'm beginning to think that Cox was either deliberately trying to stir up the conversation, or his head is full of the same air he said Stafford was swinging at.

Cox complains incessantly that there are all sorts of things wrong with the game but offers no solutions.

For him to state that Stafford get off because he missed goes against all his past arguments.. He tried to injure Perezhogin & should be punished.

I think this should be appealed but I also think the Habs must honor this suspension. It's the right thing to do.

[thomasein]

Mr. said:

At the risk of being pedantic:

Main Entry: pen·al·ty
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin poenalitas, from Latin poenalis

1 : the suffering in person, rights, or property that is annexed by law or judicial decision to the commission of a crime or public offense
2 : the suffering or the sum to be forfeited to which a person agrees to be subjected in case of nonfulfillment of stipulations
3 a : disadvantage, loss, or hardship due to some action b : a disadvantage (as loss of yardage, time, or possession of the ball or an addition to or subtraction from the score) imposed on a team or competitor for violation of the rules of a sport

*

Being punished means not being able to go about daily life as one is accustomed. It means enduring suffering and hardship (above and beyond that which one is normally subject to on this mortal coil).

Wrong.

Every person has the right to employment in Canada. An employer, or organization that is non-professional i.e. licensed, cannot prevent someone from working. For example, many non-competition clauses are non-enforcable if they prevent someone from working in their chosen field; even if the employee agreed to that contract. What I am trying to say is that the AHL can say you cannot play in this league, but to say that you cannot make a living from hockey period, anyway. If it went to trial no court would enforce it.

If you don't think this is fair then I would argue that it is because you want an employee agreement to exact penalties that are more appropriately handled criminally.

[Cranky]

thomasein said:

Wrong.

Every person has the right to employment in Canada. An employer, or organization that is non-professional i.e. licensed, cannot prevent someone from working. For example, many non-competition clauses are non-enforcable if they prevent someone from working in their chosen field; even if the employee agreed to that contract. What I am trying to say is that the AHL can say you cannot play in this league, but to say that you cannot make a living from hockey period, anyway. If it went to trial no court would enforce it.

If you don't think this is fair then I would argue that it is because you want an employee agreement to exact penalties that are more appropriately handled criminally.

The first thing Perez should have done is get a laywer. The AHL has every right to limit a player from playing in their league but I can see a massive lawsuit if they try to keep him form playing anywhere else. After all, he can argue that it was not premaditated and that the referrees contributed to the incident because they failed to enfore the rules.

Bah.....

I say Perez should threaten the NHL and the AHL. Enough with this "principle" BS.

Rules of the jungle! Let the hacking and decapitationd begin!

[Skilly]

Colin Campbell has already responded with an "I don't know if he is allowed to play next year in the NHL" according to TSN. The reason was reported as legal ramifications. This is not the first time something like this has happened (but as I said after Bertuzzigate, it won't be the last until all the acts and not just the results are punished - it is time to punish the instigator and not the retaliation). It is against competition laws and labour laws. The AHL is well within its right to ban him from playing there, but not elsewhere.

The American Medical Association can ban doctors from practicing in the USA; they can not stop them from practicing in Canada. If an employee makes a mistake in the course of his employment, he can be fired, but not fired from ever working again.

Odds are Perezhogin will be playing in ine of two spots next year. In the RSL if no legal action is taken and there is a lock-out/strike. Because if legal action is taken then Perezhogin will not be able to leave the country. If there is NHL hockey then he plays in the NHL.

The length of suspension, and the fact that Montreal refused to appeal, leads me to believe Gainey has had legal council and knows full well what he has planned for Perezhogin. There is no way the Habs let him sit and only practice all next year.

[MC Habber]

I must say I don't like the discrepancy between this and Bertuzzi's suspension. Perez caused (seemingly) less serious injuries than Bertuzzi, was responding in kind to Stafford's stick swinging after a prolonged physical battle, and you can make a good case that he didn't think he would hit Stafford anywhere near his head. Perhaps the NHL will not allow Bertuzzi to return next year, but I've a feeling that they left the duration of his suspension up in the air so that they could wait until the public had gotten over their outrage and then allow him to play again.

[Skilly]

MC said:

I must say I don't like the discrepancy between this and Bertuzzi's suspension. Perez caused (seemingly) less serious injuries than Bertuzzi, was responding in kind to Stafford's stick swinging after a prolonged physical battle, and you can make a good case that he didn't think he would hit Stafford anywhere near his head. Perhaps the NHL will not allow Bertuzzi to return next year, but I've a feeling that they left the duration of his suspension up in the air so that they could wait until the public had gotten over their outrage and then allow him to play again.

We will know about Bertuzzi's suspension soon enough.
The World Cup rosters will have to be in sometime in early June. Bertuzzi had to apply for reinstatement and have a hearing with NHL officials to be allowed int hat tournament. With Steve Yzerman and Mario Lemieux, (and I believe there are a few more injured) questionable, Gretz might just go to Bettman and force the NHL to make a call one way or the other.

[SchoonerGuy]

Is there a chance that Perezhogin could play in the WHA next year? The WHA will have no ties to the NHL.

[blaise]

SchoonerGuy said:

Is there a chance that Perezhogin could play in the WHA next year? The WHA will have no ties to the NHL.

The Habs have him under contract. I doubt whether they would allow him to play in a rival league.

[SchoonerGuy]

>>>>>>The Habs have him under contract. I doubt whether they would allow him to play in a rival league.<<<<<<

That's what I thought. But should there be a lockout, Perezhogin could very well suit up in the WHA along with numerous NHL players.

[seventeen]

HabsAddict said:

The first thing Perez should have done is get a laywer. The AHL has every right to limit a player from playing in their league but I can see a massive lawsuit if they try to keep him form playing anywhere else. After all, he can argue that it was not premaditated and that the referrees contributed to the incident because they failed to enfore the rules.

I say Perez should threaten the NHL and the AHL. Enough with this "principle" BS.

Agree entirely. I was afraid this would happen. Perezh should have gotten six games. An eye for an eye. Just because Stafford is such a lousy hockey player that he couldn't hit the ocean off a pier is no reason to go easy on him. This is so absurd that it's taken me 4 hours just to cool off before I wrote anything. I'm having a hard time understanding the logic that a kid with no previous history of any kind of violence is the brunt of such hatred for the general level of violence in hockey by some players. This is purely a case where the AHL commissioner has been intimidated and browbeaten by almost all the media who conveniently portrayed Stafford as the boy scout poster boy and Alex as the evil, satanic embodiment of everything they've ever hated in life. Hell, drug dealers and paedophiles get lighter sentences in Canada. Has someone confused Alex with Martha Stewart? Absurd, ludicrous and pathetic. No wonder justice wears a blindfod. She also needs a barf bag on her hand.

Of course if he can play for the Habs next year (if and when there's a season) I could care less if the AHL suspended him for a million games.

[Cranky]

seventeen said:

Agree entirely. I was afraid this would happen. Perezh should have gotten six games. An eye for an eye. Just because Stafford is such a lousy hockey player that he couldn't hit the ocean off a pier is no reason to go easy on him. This is so absurd that it's taken me 4 hours just to cool off before I wrote anything. I'm having a hard time understanding the logic that a kid with no previous history of any kind of violence is the brunt of such hatred for the general level of violence in hockey by some players. This is purely a case where the AHL commissioner has been intimidated and browbeaten by almost all the media who conveniently portrayed Stafford as the boy scout poster boy and Alex as the evil, satanic embodiment of everything they've ever hated in life. Hell, drug dealers and paedophiles get lighter sentences in Canada. Has someone confused Alex with Martha Stewart? Absurd, ludicrous and pathetic. No wonder justice wears a blindfod. She also needs a barf bag on her hand.

Of course if he can play for the Habs next year (if and when there's a season) I could care less if the AHL suspended him for a million games.

An eye for an eye becomes an fingernail for a hand.......

A robber comes to my house and fires a gun at me and misses but when I fire back and kill him, am I a murderer?

Had Stafford been given anywhere to an equal punishment then no one could complain. As it stands, the instigator of this action has gotten with a slap on the wrist.

Fairness to me would have been 40 games for Perez, 20 games for Stafford and lifetime ban to the officials. But what do we expect?

Meanwhile......

If someone has Perez's e-mail, let me know, I have a great labour lawyer (he and I beat Teamsters for fun). Gainey is NOT going to do what is best for Perez. They are FAR more concerned about the optics of it then the career of one prospect. Perez needs someone evil in his corner.