But we've already established that the addictions WAS a part of why he left the band or wasn't allowed back or whatever, I don't think anyone is contesting that. So he can't say that what they guys are saying isn't true because it (partly) is. There are just (in my opinion) other details that led to that, which have not been divulged in public. All he has implied is that there's more to the story...which is the only way he can really defend himself without going in to details...

I've heard rumours about other stuff from people that I work with, but I'm not about to get into that. They are literally just rumours, and I'm not going to be one of those guys that says he heard from a friend that and acquaintance went to lunch with richie's guitar tech and he said, etc etc etc..

It's highly unlikely that Richie would have the same caliber of lawyers on his own that the Bon Jovi organisation would, nor would he or his lawyers have the same influence, power, etc...he wouldn't have been in any position to negotiate the contract on his terms.