From the sounds of how it played out (ie: offered up the comment with no prompting whatsoever), he was trying to say something to get under Phaneuf and/or The Flames' skins. Clearly, he's not that bright.
 

"Sean Avery is a really, really good hockey player who really, really needs to pull his head out of his ass."

Okay, I'll call bullshit on this one. When you're called out by team leaders (Modano, Turco, Richards), you aren't a good hockey player. Saying Sean Avery is a good hockey player is like believing the Hanson Brothers would fit flawlessly into the NHL.

Word verification: dorkl. Coincidence?
 

This isn't my point but where's the union on this? I can't believe that they suspended him for this. Can you imagine if this game was on Versus tonight? Would you tune in to watch Phaneuf tune in Avery? I certainly would.

I don't see what's suspendable about that statement.
 

Sloppy seconds, though?

That seems way harsh. Hell, I thought the Ducks played a sloppy second last night, where's my gag order?

When you're called out by team leaders (Modano, Turco, Richards), you aren't a good hockey player.

I'm not sure that these guys were calling him out so much as Morrow (if it's the incident I'm thinking of). I don't think there's been very much teammate-accusation specifically in Avery's direction.
 

Earl.

Go check out the TSN.ca video files. Turco and Richards were incredulus about it, Modano had to hold his tongue as a result of an already documented altercation between the two, and Ribero's seen and heard it all already this season and doesn't know what to think.
 

Yeah agreed on the union, they definitely need to get involved here. It was a stupid thing to say but I'm not sure this was warranted.

I was looking forward to actually watching this game. Avery was right about the NHL though, it is boring.
 

"This isn't my point but where's the union on this? I can't believe that they suspended him for this."

Mc: I agree. They let Betmans and Campbells drinking buddy Burke disgrace the league for months. Then the league goes after a guy for commenting on an Ex puck bunny.

Poor Celine.

All aside, you do not go after a players family or other halfs.
 

All aside, you do not go after a players family or other halfs.

I suspect that they do on the ice. Children would probably be out of bounds but other than that...fair game.
 

This isn't my point but where's the union on this? [...] I don't see what's suspendable about that statement.

Any idea how that works, Tyler? I assume that the union would have to argue that (A) it's not "conduct detrimental to the League", on its face, or (B) that comparable behaviour (statements) have gone unpunished in the past.

I suspect (B) might work if a union lawyer did a lot of research, but off the top of my head, I can't think of any examples of NHL players requesting a media audience and then slagging an ex-girlfriend (or anything similar, or any general insults to women or a woman, at least recently).

--All aside, you do not go after a players family or other halfs.

I suspect that they do on the ice.

Yeah, how did we make it this far down the thread without a Hanrahan reference, anyway?
 

Rambling? Rambling?

That reminds me of this time back in '94 when I had this ham sandwich. Man that was some sandwich. It cost a nickel. Now nickels had pictures of bumblebees on them back then. Five bees for a quarter we used to say.

We also used to say to our buddy Hanrahan - "Hey Hanrahan your wife eats pussy! She's a dike Hanrahan!"

Anyways that sure was some sandwich.
 

Great story once again. :)
 

Even the conduct detrimental to the league thing - I assume that there would be some onus on the league to show that it was detrimental. I don't know that just pointing out that it's rude does it. Was this any worse than Bouwmeester getting nailed for a DUI? What makes it worse? I would assume that Bettman isn't a monarch.
 

MC:

Boumeester is a star player. He's akin to Pronger in the scapegoat regard.

Avery? Well, he's more like Mark Bell. Where's he at now?

RE: Union involvement. You'd have to think that's a two way street though, as Phaneuf's a card carrying member also.
 

Sure, but the league isn't disciplining Phaneuf. The issue is one of limiting the power of the NHL over players. If I was arbitrating the case and the position of the NHL was that JBo is a star (I think you're being facetious, but still), they wouldn't get very far unless I was convinced that Bettman had completely unfettered power.
 

My initial reaction was the same: I actually might want to tune into this game because someone might get murdered.

Once removed from the personal disappointment of my bloodlust not being met by the game tonight, it's seems pretty clear to me that a measured response by the NHL was necessary.

Is another Steve Moore incident detrimental to the league? Has that or could that ever result in a lawsuit or financial loss for the NHL? Could a lawsuit be spurred by an employee making a statement of a misogynistic, sexual, or characer damaging nature?

I don't think it's a sound argument to relate this event to Bouwmeester's DUI. Bouwmeester, in his personal time, broke a clear and defined law which was dealt with by the legal system. He had no prior history of either personal misconduct or legal misconduct.

Avery has a record of misconduct within the NHL and these comments were made from the locker room doing pre-game press, clearly under the umbrella of the league.
 

Mark Bell is playing for the Marlies.

He's just a bad hockey player. He did his time and then got his career back but never got on track.

Ty's point is an excellent one of course. Avery is a goof and I have no problem with him getting suspended but drinking and driving? That's a sore spot with me. I'm a Dad and I've read too many stories about children or familes getting wiped out by people getting loaded and then getting behind the wheel.

Now here's hoping that Bouwmeester got his head out of his ass and that he will never do it again but I would say that what he did was "detrimental" as well.
 

I first read about the suspension, and thought it would only be for tonight. Then I saw the video...and Avery's gone for a few games at least. Why? As TSN's panel noted, Avery clearly rehearsed the whole stunt, starting with "Do you have a camera? I just want to say one thing."

Part of that rehearsal was the choice of words, "sloppy seconds". Bigger than the choice of words though is that Avery denigrated someone that isn't an opponent on the ice. Calling Jerome Iginla boring is one thing. Going after friends/family/girlfriends in a rehearsed speech? It's a rather slippery slope if the league doesn't react.

Sure Avery was goading
Phaneuf...but why go there before the game? It was a mindless slag on a woman/women, and Avery made sure all the media caught it. No doubt similar actions happen on the ice. There's always the "heat of battle" element on the ice though. Not in this instance.

Besides, it's not like all "on-ice" actions are tolerated in other settings. High-stick someone in a game, you're sent to the box to feel shame. Do that off-ice, and you're likely to be charged criminally.

Combine all of that with Avery's record...and clearly the league felt enough is enough. Even if they didn't, apparently Hicks would have suspended him...so it's a little off-base to tar Bettman over this.

As for his teammates, the video is quite telling. Particularly Turco:
"Well hopefully...he doesn't back down. Better show up like a man. But, uh, we expect that out of him, like we have all year. Uh, you know. The show continues."

Wow. Pretty pathetic when teammates expect you to turtle. Apparently Avery missed that memo.




P.S. Word verification on this Avery post: ratee
 

"Sure, but the league isn't disciplining Phaneuf."

You misinterpreted. What I was trying to say was that if the NHLPA filed a motion to re-instate Avery, could Phaneuf not have the right to file a slander complaint against Avery with the very same NHLPA laywers?

Now that I think more into this, it's a case of the NHLPA is fucked if they file motion to re-instate Avery, and they're equally fucked if they don't. Way to go dude, you're alienating yourself from your peers on a whole new level of ass.

word verification: hyperhit.
 

Toby Peterson!
 

You misinterpreted. What I was trying to say was that if the NHLPA filed a motion to re-instate Avery, could Phaneuf not have the right to file a slander complaint against Avery with the very same NHLPA laywers?

No for two reasons. First, the PA doesn't have to bring civil actions on behalf of its members; it has no interest as an Association in that. It does have an interest in limiting the capacity of the league to discipline people. Mark Bell's another example - I thought that the PA should have fought that.

Second reason: truth is a defence in a slander action and, inelegant as the phrase may be, Messrs. Phaneuf and Stoll are, in fact, enjoying "sloppy seconds", assuming that they've consumated their relationships with the women in question.
 

Re: Bell - the PA should have fought the league discipline, not the criminal case.
 

Avery didn't insult Phaneuf so much as Cuthbert, though - if it bothers her, I'm sure she can afford to hire lawyers to bring a complaint against him.

Also, as mc79 pointed out, the phrase is crude - but also accurate.

I wish everyone would have just ignored his stupid comment. It isn't as though he was stupid enough to actually shoot himself, just figuratively. But why should the Stars be surprised by this? They signed him with their eyes wide open and should have expected this (or something like it).
 

Well, you're the lawyer, right?

I'll trust your judgement.
 

The whole "sloppy seconds" phrase as being degrading towards women, does that mean that anytime someone calls someone a bastard people born out of wedlock should get their noses out of joint?

I think the NHL was looking to get rid of Avery for awhile and this came as a perfect opportunity.

I will be interested to see if anyone in the media takes up the player's cause, though. So far the TSN Panel's in agreement that Avery's the devil and that new face of hockey Steve Kouleous thinks he should be shot.

I think the NHL's asking for it in this case.
 

"detrimental to the League or game of hockey."

Does that mean revenue? The reputation of it's product? Marketing?

How much flex does the NHL have in defining what is detrimental to their league?

Couldn't one propose a reasonable argument that the NHL is protecting itself from any future liability for any number of reasons?

What about the position of defining players as products or assets? Any physical, legal or personal damages to their products could negatively affect revenue.
 

I think it is degrading and offensive. Maybe it's just my delicate sensibilite, but if someone said that about a woman I cared about... well, what choice would you have?

Now when they say it to an international press core!? You'd be a fool to allow near that guy with a stick.
 

And of course I meant "corps"
 

Dennis/MC: I think if the league was proposing to expel Avery from the league, or void his contract, or suspend him for 10 games, you'd be on the mark. But they're not (or, won't be).

The decision to suspend him briefly though, or fine him, or whatever is pretty much unimpeachable, I think. Whether it was 'detrimental' is proven by the TSN/RSN panels talking about it very reluctantly and briefly tonight... when guys who live on controversy and hockey (in that order) won't touch it, it must be pretty damn embarrassing. (I thought Bob McKenzie nailed it, btw: if Avery says 'ex-GF' instead of 'sloppy seconds' there, it's a tempest in a teapot but certainly no suspension.)

Anyway, props to both of you for bringing not even one-tenth of the faux outrage of Puck Daddy, who is otherwise one of my faves. Another NHL fiasco here? Not so much...
 

Slipper: well how about when Avery called Martin Brodeur fat?

It seems like you and I agree on most things hockey and Oilers wise but I'm just trying to get you to expand on your views regarding this.

I am just as cutting in person as I am on net though I enjoy someone ribbing me as well if it's damn funny. I'm also not above bringing up some of my poor stories if it will draw a laugh.

but my rule's always been that you never pick on someone for something that they can't help and that's why I frown upon racist jokes or anything that's directed towards the handicap.

But in this case I see it as no more than Avery saying he went out with the girl first and Phaneuf's only with her because Avery no longer isn't.

I dunno, maybe we need a woman's perspective on this. But as I said if this is going to be deemed offensive than I'd like to see guys fined if someone slips up and calls someone a bastard if they indeed fit the term:)
 

But in this case I see it as no more than Avery saying he went out with the girl first and Phaneuf's only with her because Avery no longer isn't.

The phrase "sloppy seconds" does have a slightly more specific meaning than that. Of course, given what we learned in the David Frost trial, who knows, maybe it's accurate.

In any event, Avery and Phaneuf will meet on the ice again some day. That's going to be entertaining.

If Bettman really wants to punish the guy, the league should just unilaterally repeal the instigator as it pertains to Sean Avery.

Did one of the guys on TSN actually use the magic words or did they just allude to them? There's a famous story from the 1970's in which a fellow by the name of Earl Butz (really) who was in Ford's Cabinet got himself fired after he said: "When the conversation turned to politics, Boone, a right-wing Republican, asked Butz why the party of Lincoln was not able to attract more blacks. The Secretary responded with a line so obscene and insulting to blacks that it forced him out of the Cabinet last week and jolted the whole Ford campaign. Butz said that "...the only thing the coloreds are looking for in life are tight pussy, loose shoes and a warm place to shit."

There was a big controversy about reporting his actual words. Apparently only two papers would print the entire quote. The New York Times reported it as something like "Butz said that all black men are looking for in life is a satisfactory sex life, comfortable shoes and adequate washroom facilities."
 

David Frost weighs in:

I know Avery very well from his days playing against players I represented in the OHL and then again when he ran away from Mike Danton on a regular basis when they played against each other in the NHL. But if nothing else Avery will be worth the price of the ticket tonight with his mouth certainly not his fists against a much tougher kid in Phaneuf. Avery will have the upper hand because you know he’s going to drop the bomb on Phaneuf ” How are my sloppy seconds Dion” of course referring to the fact he was with the actress first. This should be a fun night all around in Calgary and wouldn’t it be great if Avery was miked for the night.
 

You guys are making this sound like the NHL should operate like a court of law.

They're a private business, and if they feel one of their employees stepped over the line, they SHOULD be allowed to impose discipline.

And if "sloppy seconds" doesn't seem vulgar to some of you, do a quick google search and see what you come up with.

(word verification: dionfill.... hmmm...)
 

Because normally hockey players are so sensitive.
Ever hung out with players (especially the minor leaguers)? Some are humble, hard-working and honest. Some aren't.
I'm surprised Avery stopped at sloppy seconds as an offensive remark.
He's simply one of those guys who has no censor, says whatever amuses him at the time and learned his vocabulary from hockey teammates and coaches.
He just showed us what happens when the mics and cameras aren't running.
 

From memory:

Duthie: "Was the league correct to suspend Avery, and why?"

McKenzie: "Yeah, and it's about two words: 'sloppy seconds'. [...] It's vulgar, it's misogynistic."

Also Dennis, the woman's point of view in this house is 'horrified' (even moreso after seeing the clip, having first read it).
 

They're a private business, and if they feel one of their employees stepped over the line, they SHOULD be allowed to impose discipline.

Avery doesn't work for the NHL.

The right of private employers to discipline their employees is a grey area, IIRC, although labour law isn't my area of practice and the class I took was at 8:30 a.m., which further weakens my knowledge. When there's a union and a CBA, I'm pretty sure that the right to discipline has to be found within the CBA and the union can grieve the discipline.
 

Question I thought of while leaving a comment at Mirtle's:

Avery is in Phoenix for a VS game, calls some TV cameras over and says, "Gretzky had a nice run, but he's over the hill. His daughter, though, is a fox, and could definitely use some Vitamin A, ifyouknowwhatImean."

This any different from today? OK, not OK? Should the league ignore Avery's comments on Gretzky's daughter (who obviously didn't ask for it)?
 

Dennis: I'm one of those guys who argues that Avery is amongst the best players on his team(s), which usually arouses a cocked eye-brow from Joe Fan.

Most of Avery's antics are atleast hockey related. I have no issue with jabbing opponents verbally, preferably if it's within the context of the game and is within good taste. This morning's quote doesn't qualify under either of those parameters.

I don't think that opponents of any sport should be discussing another player's sexual relationships, sexual orientation, or sexual activities progresses. What good can come of it?

Should Elisha Custhbert's personal history really become fodder for Sport Center because here and Phaneuf aren't married? What if a player has a child out of wedlock- I don't thnk that should be free game, either.

I have said sloppy seconds, usually in the company of my friends. By no means am I some PC delicate flower. But if I saw someone I dislike, or an ex-girlfriend sitting at a table with some guy, and I approached them and said "how's my sloppy seconds?", I think it's pretty clear that I'm either looking for a beating or I'm looking to dish one out.

Maybe to some people this term is innocuous, but to others it could be infered as seriously inflammatory. Not all people function in the same way.
 

My word verification for the above post was "clambun".

Seriously.
 

so...there was a hockey game tonight, no?
 

Slipper: fair enough. All I wanted to say was if we're trying to get to what exactly a person means when they say things or what a person could mean then I hope Bettman suspends anyone who uses the word bastard.

I think my biggest beef with all of this might be the high horse that McKenzie's riding on. If that guy's ever watched a porn clip and enjoyed it then he's objectified women just as more or more than Avery might have tonight.

This doesn't lessen my belief that the NHL's really entering dangerous territory by telling players what they can and can't say. Goddell's running roughshod in the NFL but even he didn't step in when Joey Porter and some other guy took turns calling each other gay.

Is that because Goddell doesn't care about the gay community or he thinks that calling someone guy is a compliment?

Avery didn't exactly come out and say, "ask dion how my **** tastes" so I think his comments can still be considered vague enough that it isn't worth a suspension.

And once again it's bob mckenzie who's really boggling me.
 

I think my biggest beef with all of this might be the high horse that McKenzie's riding on. If that guy's ever watched a porn clip and enjoyed it...

Well, that's a mental image I'll never get rid of.
 

Dennis:
One clear difference is that was two NFLers spouting off at each other. That's not what happened here. For the first time I can remember, a player used the media to bring up another player's family in a negative way.

The closest I can remember is Bob Clarke complaining about meddling and pestering from Lindros' parents. Still not the same as Clarke's complaint dealt with club issues.

Avery's comment didn't come close to having a hockey component. It was entirely personal. Sure it was a dig at Phaneuf. But it was also a dig at Cuthbert. The NHL had to nip that in the bud. The line has always been there. Avery's just the asshat that crossed it.

Again, had he said "ex-girlfriend", chances are this slides away because the remark would be entirely directed at Phaneuf. The "sloppy seconds" phrase--in a rehearsed statement--turned it from being solely at Phaneuf, into a swipe at both Phaneuf *AND* Cuthbert. Avery is no dummy. He's painting Cuthbert as a puck bunny (any article is going to mention that she'd been linked to Avery, Komisarek, and now Phaneuf). Whether Cuthbert is a puck bunny or not is completely irrelevant. It's over the line for Avery to go there. Period.

Of course there's limits on what a player can and can't say. That hardly makes this a free speech issue. There's always been a line, and it's seldom been crossed. I can't remember quotes in the media in which a player discussed someone else's friends/family/relationships in anything less that a respectful manner.

Maybe I'm just drawing a blank tonight and the parallel is obvious. If it was though, I'd think someone would have mentioned it already in this thread. Anyway, to me there's a clear difference between the tack Avery took, and taking shots at another player. Or coach. Or GM.

Same goes for your example: "bastard". Used in reference to another player is completely different being used in reference to a family member of a player/coach/management. Especially for someone with the track record of Avery.

Mirtle's post lays it out far better than could (there's a reason I'm not a writer...). If you haven't already, take a look: NHL right to suspend Avery
 

Sidenote: Puck Bunny is a friendly term. I came from a huge hockey town (Cranbrook - if you can't think of 3 players from there off the top of your head look it up) and I never heard the term "puck bunny" until I moved to Edmonton. Out in the rockies they're just plain old "puck f--ks". It actually surprised me that there was a PC name for them.
 

Awful lot of folks around here seem to think it's a totally awesome idea for the National Hockey League to be policing off-duty comments by employees of its component businesses. I'd raise holy hell if I were paying dues to a union that let this happen, and you would too.
 

I see a distinct difference between the intentional and public degradation of a specific woman (or person) and watching a porno video in the privacy of one's home. Maybe "objectify" is the wrong word here, and perhaps BM used it on live TV for a lack of a better term.

But I also see a difference between the loose use of the word "bastard" in casual conversation and someone making a premeditated trip to an orphanage and reading a letter to all the children titled "To the Bastards".

Maybe I'm just a hypocrite.
 

What I WISH would have happened:

Ms. Cuthbert releases a statement that mentions how flattered she is that she is still in Sean's thoughts, and although they had a wonderful time together, it is time for him to move on with his life. Also how unfortunate it is that he hasn't yet found a wonderful person to share his life with as she has. Finish it up with some comment about how his opinions no longer matter to her since they are no longer a couple, but she hopes that he finds some remedy for his bitterness.

Might defuse the situation by pointing out how silly and petty it is ... at least I can hope, right? :)
 

Took too long for Avery to get hit with something, classless
 

Awful lot of folks around here seem to think it's a totally awesome idea for the National Hockey League to be policing off-duty comments by employees of its component businesses.

Off-duty... that's hardly black & white is it? He was in an NHL dressing room, in front of cameras that were only there because there was an NHL game last night. This didn't happen as Avery was walking into the MTV Video Awards.

What do you mean by on-duty, anyway? Wearing a jersey, talking to Armitage/Principe between periods?
 

And 'component businesses'... there's a distinction without a difference, I think. Both the clubs and the league are bound by the CBA.
 

I know I am late kids soccer u know the deal. But my take is the NHL did the right thing. Ok u are still trying to market to the US. This may get some mention on some of entertainment shows, how would you like to have your league/team associated with some term I have only heard uttered prior to a drunken bar brawl. While some asshat is screaming Freebird.
Cannot see this going well for Sean with the ladies.
 

Matt -

I don't know what else I can say. I agree he shouldn't have said it and that it makes him and the NHL look bad. I just don't think that the league should be in the business of disciplining people for this sort of thing and I have a hard time seeing how they can do it, legally. Some people are just big bags of douche (see the story about him texting a woman to claim that he was masturbating at that moment); what are you going to do? I think you agree that they probably can't really suspend him for this; I don't know how they can control it. It doesn't make him a martyr, it just means he's found a loophole.
 

If the suspension remains "indefinite" for long, or if the NHL/Stars try to use this to void his contract, then I quite agree. But I think swift, less-than-nuclear action was the correct move, and unimpeachable too.

These are fairly unique circumstances, and like you say, they make the NHL look bad. I don't think that a short suspension sets a bad or dangerous precedent. We'll have to see where it goes from here, though.

Hey, if Puck Daddy is right and Avery is actually performing a valuable marketing service, then some team that really needs some buzz and an attendance boost will be happy to acquire him.

That's probably the happy ending here. Avery's a terrific player who belongs in league on merit, and his "sense of humour" shouldn't cost him his livelihood, but you cannot understate just how much his teammates hate him right now.

Marty Turco, when Roger Millions asked him about "the day's events" after the game last night, had a smile that was one fucking mile wide. The only thing he left out of his comments was "I'm so GLAD the bitch is gone" -- and Modano and Richards appear to feel the same way.
 

Proper response from Phaneuf to Avery - "It's fine, Sean. I got past the used part."

Axeman
 

MC: I wonder, as a lawyer, if you could shed some light on what I asked before? If the NHL is suspending Avery under article 6, what kind of flexibility would they have in defining "detrimental to the league and the game of hockey"?
 

Mike Modano is a sook anyway so I wouldn't put too much stock in what he says. And why hasn't anyone brought up the fact that the Stars were probably just pissed off that Avery was raising ruckus to pile on top of a shitty season rather than he was just raising ruckus?

If Zubov and Lethinen were healthy all season and Turco wasn't garbage then do you think the Stars would still come off as Southern gentlemen when Avery made these remarks?

I certainly don't.

The way I read the body language was something to the effect of "we're last in the fucking Conf and now we have to awnser these questions."

Slipper: I'm not saying your a hypocrite and you always seem to be a cool and level-headed guy. But my point is that if you're going to get down to the literal every time someone says something - because without getting filthy that's why people are upset with Avery - then bastard can be literal and a hurtful term as well and just someone doesn't go to an orphanage and say it, it doesn't mean that it can't sting.

Now, I'm an aged bastard myself and it doesn't hurt me but I continue to use that word as an example of how just about everything can wound or be deemed hurtful if you want to use the literal definition.

And why didn't Bettman step in and reprimand Pronger when he went on Rome and furthered the rumour that people burned his child's crib after they left town? Or do you not give a fuck about comments pertaining to fans and you're only interested in protecting the feelings and reputations of player's ladyfriends?

My whole thing is once you start this then where do you stop?

And until Avery comes out and gets graphic and details what exactly his definition of sloppy seconds means then I'll defend him.

And I don't expect James Mirtle to go against any grain so that's how I read his statement on his blog. It wouldn't be a smart career move for a blossoming writer to do that and I understand that.

And, yes Ty, scarring imagery aside that's how I'll read Bob MC or anyone else riding in his high horse cavalry.
 

Dennis: I don't believe that the reaction would be any different if Avery has used "bastard" in a premeditated and intentional public jab at an opponent if there was a distinct connotation to a real life situation.

To use your example: If Avery had not gathered all the media heads around him yesterday to make this rehearsed comment, but instead skated by Phaneuf on the ice last night and asked him "how does my **** taste?", I don't even think we hear about this situation.

And seriously... a guy can't watch porn if he feels that women shouldn't be subject to public disrespect based on their private sexual history? Gimmee a break.
 

When Modano, Turco, Richards, the owner Dallas Stars , and hell, even Mirtle, weigh in with their opinion firmly opposing Avery's actions in this situation, the position that they're all toeing the company line becomes pretty indefensible.

Is Avery the reason the Stars have performed so poorly this season? Hell no. But that's an entirely different discussion.

Does Avery's comment warrant an indefinite suspension? I don't really think so, but as Matt has said, the NHL's decision to yank Avery from last night's game is unimpeachable.

The last time a team and player had an inordinate ammount of pressure to seek retribution on another player, dude got his neck broke. I'm certain the NHL is satisfied that the big debate this afternoon is how offensive the term "sloppy seconds" is, rather than having a player seriously injured and having to defend their decision to allow these players to face-off within 12 hours of the comments air on national news.
 

The last time a team and player had an inordinate ammount of pressure to seek retribution on another player, dude got his neck broke.

This statement stinks of selective memory to me. Seems to me that there's been pressure on a lot of teams to get back at Chris Pronger (for example) for various war crimes, and yet somehow those games manage to happen without preventative NHL interference.
 

Slipper: if a guy watches porn and Doesn't think it objectifies women then yeah he can talk about how something like uttering "sloppy seconds" does.

I totally think the Stars were pissed that Avery was pouring more gas on their early season fire, BTW. The pressure's on in that town and on that team and I doubt they bat two eyelashes if they had a good early season record. I know that NHLers and Canadians in general are portrayed as the most considerate of pro athletes but do you really think saying something like "sloppy seconds" get these guys in knots?

As for making sure Avery didn't play against Phaneuf last night, if you think Avery opened up a huge wound then sitting him down for one game is like putting a band-aid on it. Until you lifetime ban him he's gonna play against Dion again sometime down the road. Phaneuf and all the other Flames are old enough to remember the Moore incident and I'm sure Laperriere remembered it too when Avery lipped off about french canadians.

The NHL is sick of Avery and they used this as the last straw. The Stars are sick of having to awnser all the questions about him while they're losing and Avery doesn't have enough cred built up to have anyone in the Stars MGMT go to bat for him.
 

Isn't the suspension indefinite until he gets a hearing with Bettman? He'll be out for three games at most.

As far as for whether he should have been suspended for the remarks - he shouldn't be dragging family and/or significant others into the conversation with NHL reporters, before an NHL event, but this is an issue best left to the team to take care of, not the league. At the same time, however, I wonder if the Stars organization is serious about the "we would have suspended him anyway" position they're taking, or if they're just saying that because the league got involved.
 

but do you really think saying something like "sloppy seconds" get these guys in knots?

Well obviously I do, or why the else are would we even discussing this. I think you are ignoring the compounding factor in that the comment was made to the press. How offensive different individuals find the term in question offensive is irrelevant. Obviously you dn't find it offensive, but that doesn't mean that everyone else who has voiced their disapproval is feigning disgust to serve an ulterior motive.

Until you lifetime ban him he's gonna play against Dion again sometime down the road.

Sure, but before then this issue should be dealt with internally between the NHL and the players involved, with some assurance that in the future their games won't be a platform for two individuals to settle personal differences.

and I'm sure Laperriere remembered it too when Avery lipped off about french canadians.

First, these comments were different. Avery made an ignorant generalization about FC's as it pertains to hockey. He didn't make a statment regard the character or personal habits of Frenchmen outside of the game.

It is hard to speculate on what types of actions the NHL has taken with player under the noses of the media. I don't think the Chris Pronger on Rome scenario envokes the dame kind of wrath as calling a guy's woman a slut on a national TV.

I also think their should be distinction made between what a guy says in an interview in the off season and what he says in the dressing room on game day.

if a guy watches porn and Doesn't think it objectifies women then yeah he can talk about how something like uttering "sloppy seconds" does.

I don't get this at all. What a person does provately and how they conduct themselves and treat others publicly are sperate issues. If Bob was walking the hallways of the TSN office slapping the interns asses and calling everyone "sugartits" then maybe I could see your point. Otherwise, I can't see this as a LArry Spitzer incident.
 

Slipper: I'll just say I see a lot of sanctimony in those comments from Bob Mac or anyone else if they enjoy or watch things that undoubtedly objectify women, a lot of literal adaptation of the comments and people ignoring that the Stars might just be pissed off with how they're doing on the ice while having to listen to Avery.

I'd bet significant amounts that if the Stars had the Sharks record you wouldn't see that kind of reaction over Avery's comments.
 

Dennis, I didn't (and don't) see this sanctimony you detect. McKenzie seemed pretty matter-of-fact about the thing: what Avery said was vulgar AND it's misogynistic AND it picked on someone outside the hockey biz AND it might have had unfortunate implications in that night's game AND it was pathetically staged AND deliberate AND he was way too pleased with himself. And if one or two of these things weren't the case, he probably wouldn't have gotten the smackdown.

I'm sympathetic to "We Shouldn't Be Going There" arguments in general, but I just can't see suspending Avery (briefly) for what he said as a dark omen or dangerous precedent, nor can I see that it'll have a chilling effect on other players because, well, other players would never dream of beckoning a camera crew and saying something like that.
 

"Dark omen" and "chilling" seems to be over-hyping things, no?

I just don't believe that the NHL can tell people what to say when the intentions aren't 100% clear.
 

What do you mean by on-duty, anyway? Wearing a jersey, talking to Armitage/Principe between periods?

Uh, yes, that's exactly the sort of thing I mean.
 

Riiight, and standing in the dressing room after the morning skate in front of hockey reporters with rolling cameras, that's not at all like that.

If he had said what he said to a TMZ crew who caught him walking out of a restaurant, I'd probably be with you.
 

I don't think that opponents of any sport should be discussing another player's sexual relationships, sexual orientation, or sexual activities progresses. What good can come of it?

I would add "with the media." On the ice, I figure you can say anything you want, other than racial slurs.

The big problem here is that he called over the cameras and let loose a pre-rehearsed speech that attacked people outside the game in a crude manner. It's not players attacking each other, it's not a random slip or an out of context or otherwise ostensibly private conversation, it's not a mic catching a stray bit of trash talk: this is calling a press conference in the dressing room to say, "Hey Dion, remember that time I fucked your girlfriend?" Come on, how is that not suspendable? How are intentions there not crystal clear?

If anything, the question here is jurisdiction: is it the NHL's right to suspend Avery, or only the Stars'? While personal conduct generally seems like a team matter, and not a League one, as Tyler says, it "makes...the NHL look bad," so in that sense, I can see their justification for assuming control of the issue, and it's not like his teammates or his managers have any problem with it.