After Game 3 there seemed to be spirited blog debate regarding what kind of player Chris Pronger is, and what the NHL should do about head hunting. But today, let’s revisit an item that the general managers kicked around almost as hard as the issues of blows to the head at their semi-annual meeting: Banned-substance suspensions.
No small number of GMs (especially those vying for the eighth and final playoff position in the Eastern Conference) were upset to learn from Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly that New York Islanders defenceman Sean Hill played virtually the last quarter of the regular season before his appeal was exhausted and it became public knowledge that he had tested positive for a performance-enhancing substance.
That’s a long time; and something that upset several GMs besides Toronto’s John Ferguson and Montreal’s Bob Gainey, both of whom lost pivotal late-season games to the Islanders with Hill in the lineup and both of whom lost out to the Islanders for the eighth and final playoff spot.
The last time this issue came up, most of you wrote it off to Leaf whining, but back then we didn’t know how long Hill played while dirty. The bigger question now is whether or not there should be a more timely process, and whether or not the player should sit out games during the appeal? That would certainly be better than having a fist-positive player play a quarter of the season and into the playoffs before being taken out of the game.
The view from here is that the player should be pulled from the lineup the exact moment the test comes back positive. Sure it’s possible there was a false positive and that would be horribly unfair, but how many times is there actually a reversal in these kinds of things. Testing today is not perfect but it’s not far off, especially for substances on the NHL’s banned list. I think it’s better to have a player removed immediately and perhaps lose some games on the appeal then to have a dirty player having a role in the outcome of as many as 20 games before all is decided.
Besides, one has to think the appeals process would move a lot faster if a player truly believed he was clean and the test was a mistake rather than dragging out the process toward what is likely a foregone conclusion while opponents have to compete against a cheater.
Yes? No?
Whatever happened about being innocent until proven guilty?
He was found guilty. Guilty verdicts have been, at times, overturned on appeal, but they were proven guilty. People are required to sit in jail while they're awaiting appeals of their jail sentence, I think athletes can be made to sit out while they appeal positive tests.
It has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty. The problem is the length that the due process is taking. The appeal period should not last a month, all the players options should be exhausted within a week. Then this all would have been avoided.
No, you can't force a player who is under suspicion of using banned substances to be suspended indefinitely or for any length of time until the charge has been proven. This would further undermine legitimacy of the NHL's drug policy. I agree that the process should indeed be sped up, although with all the legal loopholes that may be difficult. Hey Jim, nice attempt at blaming this 37 yr old defenceman for both Torontos and Montreals inability to perform at crunchtime... Sean Hill is not an impact player, Toronto consistently loses because their management/ownership team is more interested in robbing their fans and overpaying their mediocre players; Montreal will come around next year, they're a proud group.
"Whatever happened about being innocent until proven guilty?"
That's what you are until your test comes back positive. After that point it should be reverse onus (you are now considered guilty until you can prove you're innocent). The fact that a player can compete in quarter of the NHL season after testing positive for a banned substance is complete bush league which, incidentally, aptly describes the current NHL. And we wonder why no one watches the sport south of the boarder.
No, you can't force a player who is under suspicion of using banned substances to be suspended indefinitely or for any length of time until the charge has been proven. This would further undermine legitimacy of the NHL's drug policy. I agree that the process should indeed be sped up, although with all the legal loopholes that may be difficult. Hey Jim, nice attempt at blaming this 37 yr old defenceman for both Torontos and Montreals inability to perform at crunchtime... Sean Hill is not an impact player, Toronto consistently loses because their management/ownership team is more interested in robbing their fans and overpaying their mediocre players; Montreal will come around next year, they're a proud group.
No, there is no way a player should be suspended, fined or otherwise reprimanded until the charges have been proven. Unfortunately, the entire appeal process is a time consuming one, which I agree must be sped up. With all the legal gray areas, this would be very difficult to do so. I can't imagine why you would suggest that a player be penalized without any proof, to me it seems this would further undermine the already lacking credibility of the NHL's substance abuse policy. What really needs to be done is a comprehensive overhaul of the entire policy, from the actual banned substances, to meaningful repercussions, and consistent testing. Unfortunately, with the current NHL leadership, and the mess at the NHLPA, this seems far fetched to say the least. Hey Jim, nice attempt at blaming a no-impact, 37 yr old defenceman (Sean Hill) for the impotency of Toronto. Yes, that's right, Toronto is impotent. Their problems are much deeper than a senior on steroids. Toronto's ownership/management team is more focussed on robbing their adoring fans and overpaying mediocre players. Montreal gets a pass because they will come around.
Well, what MR. Kelley is saying here is that after failing the first test he should not be allowed to play until he is clear of the charges. If you test positive you have already shown guilt. Now by not playing it is like sitting in pre-trial awaiting your trial/appeal test results.
I think the NHL and NHLPA should come to some agreement about duration of time from when the player tests positive and how long they have to appeal etc. etc.
10 days max maybe? Sure the guy might be in a game or two, but that isn't the same as 20 or opposite of Hill, have to sit out those same 20 games and find out it was a false positive or something.
what are the chances of getting a false positive these days though?
Innocent until proven guilty? Give your head a shake, he was proven guilty several times, as he exhausted his apparently numerous appeals!
I completely agree (it may be the first time). I loathe the Leafs, but I was strangely angered by the injustice they suffered by the Islanders being allowed to continue playing for so long with someone who had violated the leagues rules. If a player fails a drug test, he should be sat down, and an expiditious follow-up should be done. But, the Leafs definately got robbed by the Isle, and it wasn't any of DiPietro's doing...
GearedUp - He was proven guilty when he tested positive, the appeal is a desperate measure and as history has shown only gives a thimble of hope but can drag on for a very long time, see Landis. In my opinion once you test positive you are now considered guilty until proven innocent. This wasn't based on a rumour, it was based on a positive test.
Dang it! The Leafs coulda made the playoffs. But who cares? They would've been swept by the Sabres! I say Hill saved them the embarrassment so they should be thanking him.
GO SENS GO!!!
I agree the Leafs wouldn't have got out of the first round, but once a guy tests positive, he should sit starting that night. If he then admits guilt immediately, he can begin serving his sentence right away. The lengthy appeal only hurts the player (if he sits out...though obviously it helps him if he can still play the whole time.)
Whatever...the NHL has a billion other problems too, take your pick.
Give two completely seperate labs two samples each. If sample A comes back positive from both labs, the player sits and the appeal starts. The NHLPA is as interested in this being done professionally as the NHL is. My question is why are we not testing players before the NHL? If someone is playing in a league below the NHL and they get used to testing and more importantly the rationale behind it, perhaps they will be better educated so as not to make that decision once they are pro. Someone who has a shot at making the NHL is, I would contend, more likely to use something than a player who already is in the NHL (okay, except older players perhaps). Also, this is now in the headlines? I guess I don't read the same papers Jim.
Leafs needed alot more than an average skilled d-man sitting out to have a shot at the playoffs...like a goalie and a canadian captain...and a second line.
Loyal
The Leafs didn't get robbed. C'mon. Sean Hill? Dipietro, Blake, Smyth, Bergeron, maybe. Hill just isn't that big of a game changer. Blaming a non-playoff season on a doped up non-star d-man on a team you only play 4 times is grasping at straws.
However, I do agree with the argument that Hill was kept in too long. There is a certain point in the process where you have to be able to swing towards assuming he's guilty. I don't believe it should just be as soon as the first positive test comes in, though. Maybe a positive on his B sample tested by a different lab would be more appropriate. After that, pull him out of the game. He can continue the appeal process to recoup wages or get back in earlier than the full suspension.