I've seen the video; I believe what I saw.
When I first read the story on Jarkko Ruutu's bite on Andrew Peters, I was expecting something gory.
I was expecting another iteration of Tyson/Holyfield.
Instead, what I got was an over-reaction by a good actor, and a non-story.
The video shows, yes, Ruutu did bite the glove of Peters. That is pretty obvious to see.
What I don't get is why the media isn't really looking at this for what it is.
Peters had his glove in Ruutu's face, which is normal for goons and agitators. What isn't normal is that Peters stuck his glove in Ruutu's mouth!
Being human, if someone did that to me, without thinking I would instinctively bite down and try to get it out of my mouth. Ruutu bit down on the glove, and discarded it to the side.
Then the Oscar-winnning performance comes into play.
Peters begins to do his best Nancy Kerrigan impression, only using his finger. I have worn hockey gloves many times, and unless Ruutu is the living embodiment of Jaws from James Bond, he isn't biting through the glove. It just isn't happening. Those gloves are so padded, especially in the fingers, that he isn't going through them.
So to conclude my rant of the day, Ruutu bit him. No question there. Does it warrant all of this media attention and a suspension? No! Peters overacting made this the complete farce of a story that it is.
You know what the NHL should do? Inspect Ruutu for stainless steel teeth! Only then will I believe Andrew "Oh Boo Hoo My Pinkie Finger Hurts" Peters. But until there is proof, Andrew Peters will remain an overacting-moe, and a wimpy enforcer.