If a player must pay a price for preserving the integrity of the game, what’s an owner supposed to do?
Prior to Tuesday’s announcement I had a simple question for National Hockey League commissioner Gary Bettman: will he or will he not suspend Anaheim Ducks owner Henry Samueli?
Now the more complex question is: for how long? A second question would be: who else?
I ask – and no, Gary, I didn’t call your office because, frankly, I know I won’t get an answer— what Samueli did would seem to fall under the same code of conduct regulations that ensnared Toronto Maple Leafs player Mark Bell.
Bell pleaded guilty to charges of driving under the influence and leaving the scene of an accident while a member of the San Jose Sharks. One could argue – given his career to that point—that Bell had a problem, but he never availed himself of the necessary help prior to that incident and the commissioner took it upon himself to add a 15-game suspension without pay for what the commissioner said was conduct "dishonourable, prejudicial to or against the welfare of the League or the game of hockey," in violation of National Hockey League By-Law 17.
It seemed a little much, given that the Maple Leafs would pay the price for Bell’s actions even though he was a Shark at the time of the incident, but the commissioner made a point of noting that: "Playing in the National Hockey League is a privilege, and with that privilege comes a corresponding responsibility for exemplary conduct off the ice as well as on it. Mark Bell will serve jail time following the 2007-08 season after pleading to felony and misdemeanor charges stemming from an alcohol-related automobile accident that caused an injury. He also left the scene of the accident. Such conduct is a violation of our covenant with our fans, and to the game, and is prejudicial to the welfare of the League."
Fair enough. I happened to agree with that decision at the time. Still do, but - and this is a big BUT - if what Bell did was "dishonourable, prejudicial to or against the welfare of the League or the game of hockey," doesn’t Samueli deserve even more?
The Ducks owner Monday pleaded guilty in federal court to perjury, which is a felony. It’s fair to state that he took that plea – which exposes him to five years probation and a $12.2 million fine — to avoid doing real jail time, something that the U.S. federal authorities have at their disposal whenever someone lies to them regarding a federal investigation. Ex-NHL team owners John and Tim Rigas are both incarcerated in a federal prison as examples of what happens when you fight federal charges in court and lose. They are doing 15 and 20 years respectively, the decision of a federal judge who was kind enough to allow them to do their time in the same prison so the son could see and, theoretically, attend to his aging father.
Hasn’t Samueli, a man Bettman just last month, when the investigation was first coming to light, said was "a terrific owner," dishonoured the game with his admitted violation of Securities and Exchange Commission rules regarding the back-dating of stock options? Hasn’t Samueli violated the "corresponding responsibility of exemplary conduct off the ice"?
Hasn’t Samueli, in not only admitting to doing the deed but lying about it to federal authorities, violated the covenant with the fans and the game? Are Samueli’s actions not just as prejudicial to the welfare of the NHL as Bell’s?
In fact, they are more damaging and more prejudicial because unlike Bell, Samueli did not have the crutch of a substance to cloud his actions. What he did, including the lying part, he did knowingly and, we should assume, willingly.
Surely in the area of conduct "deemed to be against the welfare of the League or the game of hockey", being an admitted crook is a punishable offence.
Now I know there will be an argument about past practice and since the NHL has a long history of previous NHL owners who have done the same or worse and haven’t been suspended by the commissioner, the argument is that past practice prevails.
Problem is, a lot of NHL players have had run-ins with alcohol and other substances and several have spent some time behind bars, but the commissioner set a precedent when he came down with an additional suspension for Bell.
He could do the same here even though there’s no record of suspension for owners such as Bruce McNall, Harold Ballard and the many others (including former commissioner Clarence Campbell) who spent time behind bars repaying their debt to the NHL and society.
But then this is a bit of a tricky problem for the commissioner.
In suspending Samueli, should he not suspend Los Angeles Kings owner Philip Anschutz, who apparently loaned money – allegedly without telling the commissioner or any other NHL official—to Boots Del Biaggio, the former part-owner of the Pittsburgh Penguins, San Jose Sharks and now the Nashville Predators, to finance a part of his share of the Nashville franchise?
Del Biaggio, who reportedly also borrowed cash from outgoing Nashville owner Craig Leipold, is also charged with fraud and a great many other financial crimes that if proven are likely to place him in the same position as the Rigas.
To the best of my limited knowledge on this matter, it’s not in the league’s best interest to have owners of one team privately (some would argue secretly) funding the owner of another team. It has something to do with the integrity of competitive balance and integrity of ownership and exemplary conduct and things like that.
Now Bettman has reportedly told board members that he was unaware of what Anschutz and Leipold had done and if that’s true that’s a good thing because one could argue that had the commissioner been made aware he might well have been a part of Del Biaggio’s alleged fraud and that would not be a good thing for the league, the game of hockey or the commissioner.
I mean it’s bad enough that the NHL’s due diligence people missed on Del Biaggio’s apparent financial shortcomings, which amount to some $17 million (the amount lent by the two owners) of the $25 million total Boots is said to have committed to the Predators. It’s worse if the commissioner knew Del Biaggio didn’t have the cash and allowed the league to sign off on the investment.
Heck, that’s not a suspendable offence, that’s a firing offence.
Should be interesting to see how the commissioner handles all of that.
After all, if a player must pay a price for preserving the integrity of the game, what’s an owner supposed to do?
For that matter, what’s a commissioner, the employee of the owners, supposed to do?
Maybe that first question isn’t so simple after all.