Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Man in Pink Panties sues Crawford

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Man in Pink Panties sues Crawford

    Todd Bertuzzi has filed a lawsuit against former Vancouver Canucks head coach Marc Crawford, alleging his negligence contributed to Bertuzzi's infamous sucker punch of Steve Moore in March 2004, according to court documents obtained by CBC News.

    Bertuzzi was an all-star forward for the Canucks when he hit Moore from behind 8:41 into the third period of a 9-2 loss to the Colorado Avalanche on March 8, 2004 in Vancouver.

    The punch came after an earlier game in which Moore knocked Vancouver captain Markus Naslund unconscious with an open-ice hit to the head. Moore wasn't penalized on the play.

    Bertuzzi's punch left Moore with three broken vertebrae in his neck and a concussion. Moore hasn't played since, and is suing Bertuzzi — now with the Anaheim Ducks — for upward of $38 million. Crawford — now the head coach of the Los Angeles Kings — was not named as a defendant in the suit, but was listed as a third party.

    The papers, filed in Toronto by Bertuzzi's lawyers, allege that Crawford urged his players in March 2004, including Bertuzzi, to make Moore "pay the price" when Crawford "knew or ought to have known that this was likely to result in injury to Moore."

    The papers also contend that Crawford "failed to exercise control over and caution his players against physical aggression toward Moore."

    The NHL suspended Bertuzzi indefinitely for attacking Moore, and didn't reinstate him until Aug. 8, 2005 — exactly 17 months later.

    Bertuzzi remained under suspension throughout the 310-day NHL lockout and was prohibited from competing in the 2004 World Cup of Hockey, two world championships and in European pro leagues.

    He also forfeited $501,926.39 US in salary and hundreds of thousands more in endorsements.

    Criminal charges filed against Bertuzzi in Vancouver resulted in a guilty plea and a sentence of one year's probation plus 80 hours of community service.

    Moore later filed a lawsuit in Denver against Bertuzzi and other notables, including Canucks ownership, but it was dismissed.

    With Bertuzzi in Turin, Italy, playing for Team Canada at the Winter Olympics, Moore filed a second lawsuit on Feb. 15, 2006.

    At the time, he was seeking $18 million for lost income, aggravated and punitive damages, but is now demanding $38 million in an amended claim.
    Source

  • #2
    What a giant cock licker.
    His mind is not for rent, to any god or government.
    Pointless debate is what we do here -- lvr

    Comment


    • #3
      210 + pink panties + Crawford = ?

      Am I the only one who expected pictures of Cindy Crawford in nothing more than pink panties?

      Oh, and Bertuzzi is a cock licker.

      Comment


      • #4
        He is a cock sucker and should have went to prison for that hit, but I have to admit that legally if the coach did say "make Moore pay the price" he should probably be both criminally and financially liable.
        Maybe / maybe not to Bertuzzi, but to Moore for sure.
        Be passionate about what you believe in, or why bother.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by madyaks View Post
          He is a cock sucker and should have went to prison for that hit, but I have to admit that legally if the coach did say "make Moore pay the price" he should probably be both criminally and financially liable.
          Maybe / maybe not to Bertuzzi, but to Moore for sure.
          I doubt that Pinkie was coerced by Crawford into making Moore pay the price.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Iowa_Card View Post
            I doubt that Pinkie was coerced by Crawford into making Moore pay the price.
            Frivilous. Lawsuit.
            His mind is not for rent, to any god or government.
            Pointless debate is what we do here -- lvr

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Iowa_Card View Post
              I doubt that Pinkie was coerced by Crawford into making Moore pay the price.
              No one said coerced, but if I sent a guy to your house to beat your ass I am pretty sure I could be held liable.
              Isn't it conspiracy?
              Be passionate about what you believe in, or why bother.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by madyaks View Post
                No one said coerced, but if I sent a guy to your house to beat your ass I am pretty sure I could be held liable.
                Isn't it conspiracy?
                You scenario is an Apples and oranges comparison.

                The lawsuit is claiming that Bertuzzi was ordered by his manager to perform a task at his job. A task which was considered a crime. However, as a free-thinking employee you have the obligation to refuse to perform a job-related task that could potentially be illegal. In other words, Crawford didn't commit the crime.

                Besides, all Crawford has to do is say that what Bertuzzi did was not what he was referring to when he said to "make Moore pay".

                Furthermore, saying "make Moore pay" is not criminal in the least.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by moedrabowsky View Post
                  Frivilous. Lawsuit.
                  Exactly.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Iowa_Card View Post
                    You scenario is an Apples and oranges comparison.

                    The lawsuit is claiming that Bertuzzi was ordered by his manager to perform a task at his job. A task which was considered a crime. However, as a free-thinking employee you have the obligation to refuse to perform a job-related task that could potentially be illegal. In other words, Crawford didn't commit the crime.

                    Besides, all Crawford has to do is say that what Bertuzzi did was not what he was referring to when he said to "make Moore pay".

                    Furthermore, saying "make Moore pay" is not criminal in the least.
                    It'll be bad for Crawford if Bertuzzi calls other players to testify and say that 'make him pay' is what Crawford says when he wants his guys to beat a dude's ass.

                    Moon

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Iowa_Card View Post
                      You scenario is an Apples and oranges comparison.

                      The lawsuit is claiming that Bertuzzi was ordered by his manager to perform a task at his job. A task which was considered a crime. However, as a free-thinking employee you have the obligation to refuse to perform a job-related task that could potentially be illegal. In other words, Crawford didn't commit the crime.

                      Besides, all Crawford has to do is say that what Bertuzzi did was not what he was referring to when he said to "make Moore pay".
                      And I said I wasn't sure about Bertuzzi's suit, but I do think the coach could be liable for the attack if Moore were to sue. And a Jury could decide what it though was meant when a NHL goon is told to make someone "pay".
                      Be passionate about what you believe in, or why bother.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Moon Man View Post
                        It'll be bad for Crawford if Bertuzzi calls other players to testify and say that 'make him pay' is what Crawford says when he wants his guys to beat a dude's ass.

                        Moon
                        I'm sure Crawford's lawyer will say there is a difference between accepted hockey retailation and slamming a man's face into the ice from behind.
                        His mind is not for rent, to any god or government.
                        Pointless debate is what we do here -- lvr

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Moon Man View Post
                          It'll be bad for Crawford if Bertuzzi calls other players to testify and say that 'make him pay' is what Crawford says when he wants his guys to beat a dude's ass.

                          Moon
                          Maybe. They'd have to convince the jurors/judge that there was no doubt or question as to what Crawford wanted as the end result.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by madyaks View Post
                            And I said I wasn't sure about Bertuzzi's suit, but I do think the coach could be liable for the attack if Moore were to sue. And a Jury could decide what it though was meant when a NHL goon is told to make someone "pay".
                            The jury hears the evidence that is established in the court hearing. Things from a juror like "my interpretation" will be cause for a mistrial. They must prove based on the evidence and testimony presented whether Crawford is liable for the aftermath of Pinkie following an order.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X