Ken wrote:
>
> "owl" <churchsl.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1d090974-b57e-44e8-bdec-4a25664266ee@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 10, 2:52 pm, "finsfan" <hmatthe....TakeThisOut@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
>>> Hey I'm not trying to cause a flame war here but really.
>
>> Actually, that was all you were doing.
>
>>> What exactly is your point?
>
>> That equal treatment would have had Bettman giving them the same post-
>> mortem for bad publicity that Bell got.
>
>>> Should O'Byrne get a suspension for being charged and then
>>> charges dropped? Yes, I think so. Conduct unbecoming a player. I
>>> still do
>>> not think it is as seriuos as Bell's offense. BTW he's kept his nose
>>> clean
>>> since the incident, right?
>
>> So did Bell - In fact, it was a year and a team later. You were the
>> one that threw in the ficititious cell-phone excuse that belonged to
>> Tlusty, and you were the one that introduced the flame game with the
>> Loafs thing.
>
>> Is it as serious? No. But fact is, the Montreal thing made a big
>> line at the time, and the Bell thing was dead and buried until the
>> judge threw some weight into it. And yes, the point of the post was
>> that Bell got treated worse much much later than either of the Habs
>> will ever get treated.
>
> Your point is lost Owl. It isn't a Battman thing. Bell got it much
> worse because he got convicted, and he has priors. If O'Byrne was going
> to do jail time, then the league would do things differently. You want
> a better comparable, look up Ken Daneyko's record, or Kevin Lowe's jail
> stint. When the charges get dropped, it ceases to be an employer's issue.
>
>
Welcome back, Ken, and keep up the good fight.
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
