Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
Which Wideman should I believe?
The one who vaguely remembers going to the bench and an incident happening but doesn't remember who or how he hit someone?
Or the Wideman who recalls the event and looked up last second and hit the linesman but apologized for it right after?
|
If I know one thing about concussion symptoms, it's that events can be distorted even if remembered. Honestly, nobody should be too hard on Wideman for changing his story since he likely barely remembers the incident himself.
Here's the part that bothers me. Bettman admits that Wideman has had a virtually spotless record, yet also says that he gives Wideman's testimony "no credit". Most of his explanation reads like a very biased judge making an example of a defendant in order to try and dissuade future similar activities. Not to mention how long it took to announce a decision that was obviously pretty clear to Bettman from the outset. He purposely made Wideman twist in the wind on this one...again to make an example.
I just honestly don't feel like Wideman is being treated entirely fairly during this process. And for the record, I agree that he deserved a lengthy suspension for his actions. Not sure I would have said 20, but I'd have been comfortable with 10-15.
This whole thing stinks.