Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: kcarrera and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Sports and Redskins  |  RSS

Islanders Defenseman Hill Suspended

Just received an email from the leauge saying Sean Hill has been suspended 20 games for violating the terms of the NHL/NHLPA performance enhancing substances program. The suspension begins with tonight's Game 5 against the Sabres.

Here's a link.

By Tarik El-Bashir  |  April 20, 2007; 4:59 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Tix and Merchandise to Cost More at VC
Next: Ratings Suffering

Comments

Wow! Has an NHLer been suspended previously for performance enhancing drugs?

I found the following article from 2005 that indicated to that point there had been only three positive tests for PES in the NHL and two of those were reasonably explainable:

http://www.tsn.ca/tsn/news_story/?ID=125286&hubname=

Posted by: Bubba | April 20, 2007 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Hey Tarik:

If memory serves, Hill is one of those "character guys" that some suggested GMGM should have pursued?

Posted by: Joe | April 21, 2007 7:07 AM | Report abuse

Wow, check out this article by the Toronto Star. Even though it has absolutely nothing to do with him, they find a way to work Crosby in

http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/205743

Posted by: Dudezy | April 21, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Maybe I'm a sucker, but I had been very impressed with Hill's play this year. Of course it's probable, with this news, that it was due to his use/reliance on drugs.

Either way, he's going to be an inexpensive UFA (he made 600k this year, and now the positive drug test is gonna hurt his value badly), LOTS of experience, plays physically, and plays pretty smart hockey. Anyone think it's worth the risk of signing him to a one year deal in the off-season (even with him missing 19 games to start next season)?

Posted by: Jeff | April 23, 2007 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Jeff:
Re Sean Hill - debating the risk is one factor, but,jeez, the guys already 37 years old! Don't you have to wonder just why the Caps would go in that direction, rather than, say, pursuing someone in the 27-31 year range

Posted by: Joe | April 23, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Oh, no question the dude is old. No question the guy has a lot of risk...but ultimately, our D is extremely young, and if we feel like our young guys (Green, Eminger, Schultz, etc) just need another year or two to mature, you can't give out long term contracts to guys in the 27-31 age range (see Pothier, Brian) who will eat up both salary cap and a roster space.

I was thinking Hill (or another cheap/experienced UFA) might be a decent bridge between our young guys who "are the future" and when the future finally gets here.

Posted by: Jeff | April 23, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

I don't necessarily agree with you - there are other options that I prefer- but that's okay. It's just about universaally agreed, afterall, that we've got to do something.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 23, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

We could have used him on our team this year... doped up or not.

Its a shame Witt soured on the Caps. Hopefully Rivet will sign with the Caps.

Posted by: Graham | April 24, 2007 9:00 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company