View Single Post
Old
10-28-2003, 10:58 AM
  #4
agentfouser
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by IGM
I think that unfortunately in Corvo's case since he plead down that we really don't know what the true circumstances of the situation were so if it were up to me I would make him stick to his parole (or court arrangements) and let him know that if he steps out of line one time that he is out.

I believe in the constitution of the United States of America and until ZP is PROVEN guilty he is innocent to me. If it turns out that he was guilty of spousal abuse then let the law deal with the problem and stand by their decision. When Doug Gilmore ***** his babysitter he was allowed to play in the NHL and that always rubbed me the wrong way but in a sense it was right. The law made the determination of his punishment and his team stood by it.

We have to remember that these guys are only hockey players when they are on the ice and afford them to have a personal life and let them have to live up to the same standards that we all do.
of course i would not take action against palffy until he was proven proven guilty; i was thinking in more hypothetical terms, as in "if he is found guilty."

so what you're saying, basically, is that even if the guilt of both of these players is established, you would continue to allow them to play if they were not sentenced to jail? you would not advocate any further sanctions from the los angeles kings on these players?

if that is correct, then yes, i agree that is one route that the team could take, and perhaps should take. but at the same time, its hard to support having players in your organization who have been convicted of violent crime.