What I mean is that he was able to perform. Jon didn't care 2005/2006 and in 2010 about Richies drug problem as long as he was performing.
Whatever problem Richie had he would have been able to perform in Calgary. So in my opinion a drug problem is not an explanation.

The point is that, even if Richie was using or drinking or whatever he was still performing well, better than well in fact! If he'd been using for years and functioning perfectly well, how come he suddenly stopped being able to do that, pretty much over night.

He was on holiday with his daughter having a great time and then suddenly he is unable to perform!? Did he completely **** himself up on his way back from the holiday!? Seems unlikely. I also think there is more to it, and while the substance abuse was there, Jon is using that as an excuse, a deflection if you like...

As I've said a million times, Bon Jovi are a band that have never aired their dirty laundry in public. Why do people suddenly think that they are telling us the whole story here....

the fact that it's always Jon, David and Tico at these things pretty much confirms to me that the whole "band" thing is still bull. It's those 3 guys and the rest are just hired hands, no matter what the promo pics show....

Also, it really doesn't sound as if Jon has any intention of writing with Phil, and certainly still hasn't at this point, which is disappointing. Phil's input would have really made the next record more interesting to me...instead it will just be more of the same...

Or his drug use worsened and he missed a flight or whatever else.

Bon Jovi are REALLY far from the sleazy rock & roll band that would appreciate the image boost a made up drug story would bring. Jon's story makes way more sense than Richie's "I wanted to see my daughter" angle, which ammounted to a whole lot of nothing even early on. Like Thinny said - they were NOT a fan of having their dirty laundry out in the public. Why would they MAKE this up?

It's not made up, we all know that Richie has had issues with that, and his various stints in rehab are public knowledge, so they are not telling us anything that we don't already know. Mark my words, there is much more to this story....

Not saying this is the full truth because I think it definitely isn't. But while in 2007 it was obvious to everyone that Richie had fallen off the wagon, in 2011 he played the first US leg without anyone here noticing anything being wrong with him. About a month later it was all of a sudden announced he was going back into rehab. So it's hard to tell that from the shows before sometimes.

I agree with richiefan95 and Thinny: it wasn't about performing. Richie was super productive and looked healthy for almost 2 years right up to Calgary, and again right afterwards, well into 2014. IF substance abuse was the reason, then Richie getting too ****ed up to get on a plane is only way that would make sense.

Why do people insist on ignoring Richie's initial statements (which had nothing to do with Ava); and totally disregard the fact that immediately after Jon first hinted at rehab, both he and Richie denied that alcohol and/or drugs had anything to do with Richie's departure?

For the umpteenth time, the first reason Richie gave was that he and Jon weren't "happening"; and when he was asked what the obstacles were, he replied that it wasn't his place to say, that band business should stay in the band, so that's all he was going to say. That's about as close as you can get to saying there was friction between him and Jon, without airing the band's dirty laundry.

Ava wasn't given as a reason until November 2013, iirc; about the same time that Richie said there was no longer any malice between him and Jon. Even then, it was clear that Ava was a smokescreen, a convenient explanation that would keep people from looking too hard for any other explanations that might involve Jon/BJ.

IMO, Jon and David are doing the same thing. Knowing that Richie's history is common knowledge, his addiction is a good smokescreen, a convenient explanation people can readily accept, to keep them from looking for any other reasons that might lead to Jon or the band.

I agree with you that Jon wouldn't make up something to give the band a grittier image; but I don't think he'd balk at muddying the waters with innuendo, true or false, if he believes it would protect the brand. They don't air the band's dirty laundry, but Jon has never had a problem airing anybody's personal laundry as long as he comes across as the good guy.

For example?

I mean, the whole Burning Bridges and This House is Not For Sale era is dirty laundry being aired in public. Football team, record deal and all that.

That's not the band's dirty laundry between members though. The point was the brotherhood between them, if we're including record labels and outside issues then they've been doing that for years.