[sureLoss]

Summary of Bettman's decision:

In sum, I find that the expert testimony presented on behalf of the Player was speculative, at times contradictory, lacked support and was wholly insufficient to rebut the clear and convincing evidence provided by the video footage of the incident. In addition, I do not credit Mr. Wideman's
testimony. In particular, I do not credit his testimony that he tried to avoid the linesman at the last minute. He did not swerve out of the way and he did not merely bump into the linesman or put his hands or arms on him. As noted, he raised his stick and cross-checked him in the upper back. I do note, however, that Mr. Wideman's testimony on this point (which, like the rest of what he had to say, was accepted unquestioningly by the NHLPA's experts) is inconsistent with Dr. Kutcher's suggestion that he
lacked "situational awareness.

" Moreover, he was aware enough to tap his stick on the ice to signal a
line change and skate directly to the Calgary bench. His head was up as he did so and he testified that he recognized the person skating towards him as an official. He was not wobbly; indeed, he hit the official with full force and then continued to the Calgary bench. Even if one were to assume some level
of distress on Mr. Wideman's part as a result of a concussion or other injury caused by the Salomaki check, there was no sign that he was disoriented in any material way and his every instinct as an NHL player should have been to avoid hitting Mr. Henderson, as opposed to cross-checking him in the back.

In short, the record as a whole does not support the contention that Mr. Wideman's actions were the result of confusion, a failure of "impulse control"" or a loss of balance. Moreover, to find on a record such as this one that the Player was not responsible for the consequences of his actions would
set a precedent that could be easily manipulated in the future in a way that would make the game more dangerous for all participants, including players.


Having made this determination, I am left with the firm view that a significant suspension is appropriate. On-ice officials simply cannot be made the target of a player's frustration or anger. As noted above, the NHLPA observed that a reduced suspension is within the realm of possibility, though
the Union did not suggest one. I do not see a basis for a lesser penalty, particularly given the severity of the conduct involved.

On the other hand, I have the authority to impose a more substantial suspension, and I am troubled by Mr. Wideman's total failure to accept any responsibility for his actions. Indeed, although he made much at the hearing about the apologies he had already made to Mr. Henderson, the sincerity of
those apologies rings somewhat hollow given the text message he sent to a teammate on February 2— after the conclusion of the hearing before Mr. Campbell — that "[t]he only problem and the only reason I'm here is cause the stupid refs and stupid media. " (Exh. B) Nevertheless, in light of Mr. Wideman's prior exemplary disciplinary record, I decline to increase the suspension imposed by Mr. Campbell, which corresponds to the minimum penalty that would apply if Rule 40. 2 were applicable.