FocusCanada Forums

what do you guys think of bettmans reasoning behind letting him back?

I dont care haha

if he's getting paid he may as well play.

no way in hell he should have been re-instated.....


he had a 28 game suspension [or whatever] and just because they didn't play for a year that makes it ok?? NOBODY got to play...so how does that make sense????

Bettmans rulling

its a long read but i read it to see his reasoning behind it and he definitely thought it out. if you have the time and actually care about the topic, i suggest reading it.

I don't need to read Bettman's BS. A ban is a ban is a ban. He did the crime, he should do the time regardless of how repentant he is.

YES,

Despite the fact he made a terrible choice/mistake..I believe he has paid his fine/price for the Moore inncident and shouldnt lose his careervelyhood over it.

My buddies dad used to be the GM on the Guelph Storm and I got to play road hockey with Jeff O'Neil & Todd Bertuzzi many years ago when they were both OHL Guelph Storm players and he is an extremely nice, humble, and down-to-earth guy that made a mistake..I have absolutely no doubt that this has affected him more than anyone can tell!!

Glad to see he is back!!

Paul... it was a cowardly attack.... screw the mistake s**t!

If I ran over your mother with my car, and the judge decides to ban me from driving for a year and I'm fined... I should do the time / lack of driving.

IF there's a gas shortage and all cars don't drive for a year, that doesn't mean I should get to drive the same day the gas comes back... I should be banned for an additional year. It's the idea of "rubbing your nose in it" - it doesn't work if there's nothing to rub your nose in. :angry:

gary bettman Wrote:For the reasons set forth below, it is my belief that Mr. Bertuzzi has paid a very significant price for his conduct on March 8, 2004, and that he should be reinstated immediately so that he is eligible to play as of the commencement of the 2005-06 NHL season. In reaching this determination, I note the following material considerations to which I have paid particular attention:

1. Mr. Bertuzzi's actions were deserving of an appropriately harsh sanction. From an NHL standpoint, there is no question that Mr. Bertuzzi's actions clearly went well beyond what could ever be considered acceptable behavior in the National Hockey League. Mr. Bertuzzi must be held responsible for the results of his actions, and the message must be delivered loudly and forcefully that the game will not tolerate this type of conduct. I believe that the League's response at the time of the incident and subsequently is consistent with that responsibility and delivers that message.

2. I find that the appropriate discipline to be imposed for Mr. Bertuzzi's conduct on March 8, 2004 is the suspension that has been served to date by Mr. Bertuzzi (i.e., a supplemental discipline suspension of almost seventeen (17) months, the longest in NHL history).

I anticipate that there will be those who will say that Mr. Bertuzzi's seventeen (17) month suspension is inadequate, and not proportionate to suspensions imposed on other Players for conduct that may be considered ''less severe'' than Mr. Bertuzzi's actions because of the work stoppage that wiped out the entire 2004-05 NHL season. I disagree. In light of the unusual circumstances surrounding the 2004-05 season, it is appropriate to consider not only the significant impact the suspension has had on Mr. Bertuzzi's NHL career, but also the impact that the League's suspension has had on Mr. Bertuzzi's ability to play professional hockey anywhere during this time, as well as the financial, criminal, civil and emotional consequences he has endured as a result of his conduct on March 8, 2004, as follows:

As a result of his suspension, Mr. Bertuzzi missed thirteen (13) NHL regular season games and seven (7) NHL playoff games during the 2003/04 season, resulting in his forfeiture of $501,926.39 in salary.

Both the Vancouver organization and Mr. Bertuzzi believe that Mr. Bertuzzi's suspension may very well have cost the team competitively, resulting in a less favorable 2004 playoff experience than the Club otherwise may have achieved had Mr. Bertuzzi been on the roster and playing.

As a result of his suspended status, Mr. Bertuzzi also was deemed ineligible to play hockey outside of the NHL during the period of his suspension. The practical consequences of this were that Mr. Bertuzzi could not join the numerous other NHL players who were able to participate in the 2004 World Cup of Hockey and in the 2004 and 2005 IIHF World Hockey Championships. In addition, because he was barred by the International Ice Hockey Federation from playing professional hockey in Europe during the period of his suspension, Mr. Bertuzzi was ruled ineligible to play for any European professional team during the term of the NHL work stoppage, thereby distinguishing Mr. Bertuzzi from almost 400 of his fellow NHL players who played and earned salaries in Europe. Therefore, although he sought employment in Europe, Mr. Bertuzzi's NHL suspension effectively precluded him from earning a livelihood playing hockey for the entire seventeen (17) months of his suspension. Mr. Bertuzzi testified that following his actions on March 8, 2004 and his suspension by the NHL, he experienced lost or cancelled endorsement opportunities estimated in the approximate amount of $350,000.

And he'll make it all back in a year and then some.

That jackass Bettman makes enough as it is, nevermind guys like Bertuzzi. This is sad. I can just imagine that the guy he whacked will just say "No comment", as he can't come back now that hockey's back.

It's a farce. Bettman should just move here and run for Prime Minister or anything else equally important in the Canadian government - he'd fit right in.

ZX5focused,Aug 9 2005, 02:58 PM Wrote:what do you guys think of bettmans reasoning behind letting him back?
[right][snapback]129987[/snapback][/right]

Speaking as someone who works in the legal profession for a living let me just say his reasoning is as lawlerly and weasely as it gets.

I'm sorry but until Steve Moore comes back to play again (If he ever does) Bertuzzi should not be allowed to play hockey at the professional level for any league ever What Bertuzzi did was stupid, dangerous and came a lucky fall away from Bertuzzi being charged with manslaughter.

Frankly the fact that Bettman even mentions the fact that Moore is pursuing a civil action against Bertuzzi and suggests that as a ground for re-instatement shows just how out of touch with reality Bettman actually is.

If Bertuzzi ever shows his face in Toronto as a player while Moore is unable to play and I see him? I'll tell him what I think of him as a hockey player :angry:

NefCanuck

ZX5focused,Aug 9 2005, 02:15 PM Wrote:

gary bettman Wrote: but also the impact that the League's suspension has had on Mr. Bertuzzi's ability to play professional hockey anywhere during this time, as well as the financial, criminal, civil and emotional consequences he has endured as a result of his conduct on March 8, 2004, as follows:

As a result of his suspension, Mr. Bertuzzi missed thirteen (13) NHL regular season games and seven (7) NHL playoff games during the 2003/04 season, resulting in his forfeiture of $501,926.39 in salary.

Mr. Bertuzzi testified that following his actions on March 8, 2004 and his suspension by the NHL, he experienced lost or cancelled endorsement opportunities estimated in the approximate amount of $350,000.

[right][snapback]130003[/snapback][/right]

oh dear....he lost nearly $1million dollars....what is the world going to do!!! These guys get paid WAYYYYYYY too much for what they do to begin with....$1million dollars is chump change to them in the big scheme of things....




and "....but also the impact that the League's suspension has had on Mr. Bertuzzi's ability to play professional hockey anywhere during this time..."


oh...i'm sorry....maybe he should have thought about that before hitting him!!! He brought that upon himself!!!


lame...so lame

I stand by what I said!!

Glad to hear he is gonna play again!! :)

If I had beat on a guy at my work that I didn't like so hard that I broke his neck:

-I would still be in jail, 15 months later, WAITING FOR MY TRIAL TO EVEN START.

-THEN would come the jail time.

-Think that my work would ever hire me back EVER let alone "under probation"?

Nuff said. It's a case of celebrity justice.

wow, i never thought of it that way.

2001 ZTS,Aug 9 2005, 03:51 PM Wrote:If I had beat on a guy at my work that I didn't like so hard that I broke his neck:

-I would still be in jail, 15 months later, WAITING FOR MY TRIAL TO EVEN START.

-THEN would come the jail time.

-Think that my work would ever hire me back EVER let alone "under probation"?

Nuff said. It's a case of celebrity justice.
[right][snapback]130025[/snapback][/right]

They should throw you in jail, regardless, for what you've done to your focus!!

<_<

2001 ZTS,Aug 9 2005, 03:51 PM Wrote:If I had beat on a guy at my work that I didn't like so hard that I broke his neck:

-I would still be in jail, 15 months later, WAITING FOR MY TRIAL TO EVEN START.

-THEN would come the jail time.

-Think that my work would ever hire me back EVER let alone "under probation"?

Nuff said. It's a case of celebrity justice.
[right][snapback]130025[/snapback][/right]

Well said, Andrew. Very well said.

I'm in between!

SangriaRedZX5,Aug 9 2005, 04:30 PM Wrote:I'm in between!
[right][snapback]130060[/snapback][/right]

hehehehehe

No Comment! :lol:

Guys and THEIR MINDS. Seriously!
Meaning I'm not sure if I'm a yes or a no... according to the poll!

haha, Paul i thought you were supposed to stop offending people :lol: