Biete - Deuterium » little bit) by Sami Vatanen who got 2:00 for slashin

AUSTIN, Texas -- Lance Armstrong has been ordered to give sworn videotaped testimony next month about using performance-enhancing drugs to win the Tour de France seven times. Armstrong has been sued by a Texas company seeking the return of about $12 million in performance bonuses. An arbitration panel has issued subpoenas for testimony from Armstrong on June 12 and his longtime business manager Bill Stapleton on June 9. The cyclist has asked the Texas Supreme Court to intervene. He says a previous settlement with SCA Promotions is binding and cannot be reopened. Armstrongs attorneys noted the subpoenas in a request for the Supreme Court to rule quickly. Armstrong provided written sworn testimony last year in an unrelated lawsuit, and for the first time provided names of those he says assisted in his doping. Clearance Air Max Australia Store . Trailing by a goal after 20 minutes of play, Joe Pavelski responded with three goals and an assist as the Sharks snapped a two-game losing skid with a 5-2 victory over the struggling Edmonton Oilers on Tuesday. Discount Air Max Australia Online . "Its not done, but its a huge step," Hannover general manager Dirk Dufner said. Poor defending allowed the visitors to score in the second minute, when Leon Andreasens header from Christian Panders cross sent the ball inside the far post. http://www.airmaxaustraliacheap.com/.C. -- Kurt Busch put his chances at "70 per cent" at running the Indianapolis 500 this year because of recent developments that have pushed a potential program along. Air Max From China . That still leaves a big hole.You dont replace the leadership, defensive co-ordinator Billy Davis said. You just dont. Leadership is something that is earned over time. Cheap Air Max Australia For Sale . Bryant underwent an operation in December to correct an irregular heartbeat. His season ended with four games left because of a rapid heartbeat, a condition he has known about for several years and had been treated for in the past.Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry wants to answer your emails at cmonref@tsn.ca. Hi Mr Fraser Can you clarify if I was in a time-warp over the weekend? In the 2nd period, Evander Kane boarded Clayton Stoner from behind, and got a deserved major penalty. However, while a teammate was engaging with Kane, Stoner got up, dropped his gloves and punched Kane 3 times in the head. It looked like the 1970s Flyers with Schultz and Dupont ganging up on an opponent, and the refs duly ignoring it. Stoner got 2 for roughing. How many bare-fisted punches to the head do you get for 2 minutes? And isnt there a 3rd man in rule anymore? Kane was partially tied up by the other Ducks player while Stoner was unloading. Surely theres an irony to Kane getting ejected for a dangerous hit but Stoner getting 2 minutes for 3 bare-fisted punches to Kanes head while Kane is not even free to defend or protect himself. So much for the NHL wanting to protect its players from head injuries. Then in the 3rd Dustin Byfuglien was in alone on a breakaway and was impeded (a little bit) by Sami Vatanen who got 2:00 for slashing. OK, it was a borderline call, maybe, but either you have to give a penalty shot, surely, or else make no call. Again, it looked like a bit of 1970s and 1980s let em play officiating. This inconsistency makes the NHL look bad, in my opinion. What do you think? Thanks Brian Jose Durres, Albania -- Mr. Fraser. Just watched Evander Kanes hit from behind and completely agree with the penalty and misconduct, my question is as Kanes engaged with the teammate the Ducks player gets up drops the gloves and starts throwing as third man in. He was assessed a 2 minute penalty for this, would seem to me it should have been evened out. Like to know your opinion. Thanks, Paul Paul and Brian (Many thanks for coming to us all the way from Durres, Albania): There is no question the referee(s) assessed the appropriate penalty to Evander Kane, five minutes plus a game misconduct, for a check from behind that drove Clayton Stoner face-first into the glass. I have no doubt that Kane will be suspended for this careless and dangerous hit. As both of you have alluded to in your question, a free pass should not be given to any player who wishes to retaliate but must be held accountable for his actions under the playing rules as the penalty meter continues to run. An altercation (46.3) is defined as a situation involving two players with at least one to be penalized. This definition was clearly satisfied once Kane delivered the illegal hit on Stoner. There was a minimal time delay from the moment of the hit (and with Stoner still down on the ice) to when Sami Vatanen of the Ducks approached Kane with his stick in a prone, cross-check position to engage the Jets player. If Stoner had not gotten up off the ice and immediately attacked Kane the intervention by Vatanen could have been treated as a separate altercation and penalized accordingly. In this scenario Vatanens actions were worthy of a minor penalty for roughing. Depending upon Kanes response to Vartanen, all we had at that point was a major andd game misconduct to Kane and a minor to Vatanen.dddddddddddd This changed, however, when Stoner got up off the ice, threw his gloves down and began unloading bombs to the facial area of Kane, who was now engaged with Vatanen. Based on Stoners aggressive actions, well beyond a simple roughing incident, he was no longer the victim of an illegal hit but potentially the instigator of a subsequent fight. Stoner threw three punches, one of which appeared to get through and connect to the face of Kane. In a perfect world, Stoner should have been assessed two minutes for instigating, five minutes for fighting and a 10 minute misconduct and Vartanen a roughing minor and game misconduct as the third man into an altercation. A perfect world it is not and as rule 46 (fighting) states, The referees are provided very wide latitude in the penalties which they may impose under this rule. This is done intentionally to enable them to differentiate between the obvious degrees of responsibility of the participants for either starting the fighting or persisting in continuing the fighting. To be fair and in consideration of the wide latitude granted to the referee, the punches thrown by Stoner did not commence until after Vartanen intervened and engaged Kane, which would cause some reluctance for the referee to determine a third man in. The linesmen were also quick to intervene and restrain Stoner from continuing to throw punches. It would be reasonable, under these circumstances, for the referee to forgo a fighting major to Stoner but to instead treat the entire altercation as separate roughing incidents. Im not into the even up theory here, Paul, and disagree with the final assessment of penalties. At the very least, Stoner deserved a double-minor for roughing based on the number of attempted punches thrown and Vartanen, a single roughing minor in the aftermath of the check from behind delivered by Kane. Kane did not respond other than in an attempt to fend off both Vartanen and Stoner by raising his hands in a defensive posture. As such, Kane was deserving of nothing beyond the major and game misconduct. The Jets should have received a 4-on-3 numerical advantage for two minutes (assuming a Jets PP goal did not result), following which the teams would play four aside another two minutes. The Ducks would then receive a one minute power-play for the duration of Kanes major infraction. An assessment of penalties in this manner identifies the actions of each individual player and holds them more accountable under the rules. It also sends a message to players who seek retribution that they nullify a potential power-play their team was about to receive and in this case end up a man short. At 4:56 of the third period, Vartanen made light contact to the hip area of Dustin Bufuglien with a slash as the Jets player was in the act of shooting on a clear breakaway. A penalty shot is awarded to restore a lost scoring opportunity. The contact delivered by Vartanen did not restrict Bufugliens shot or scoring opportunity and was unworthy of penalty shot. The minor penalty for slashing was based more on the full extension for Vartanen to make contact than the degree of force exerted. ' ' '