[MBates]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Reading the cross-examinations, (and yes realizing they were cherry picked excerpts from transcript), the NHL/Bettman did a pretty good job of destroying any credibility the concussion experts had to do with Wideman.

Yeah I agree with this assessment. The most prominent expert is only as good as the factual foundation upon which they base their opinion.

As a general principle, not accounting for the possibility of fabrication in a self-report from an interview subject is very harmful to an expert's conclusions.

Also, not obtaining foundation evidence from the people who actually dealt with and interviewed a patient in the immediate moments after the incident can be extremely harmful to an experts's conclusions:

Neither the NHLPA nor its expert witnesses presented (or even sought) any corroboration for the contention that Mr. Wideman's seemingly intentional actions were in fact the product of a "confused" state. As noted above, Drs. Comper and Kutcher both simply took what Mr. Wideman told them at face value. They could have, but did not, seek to corroborate his statements by speaking with the Club's medical trainer, who was not consulted by either Dr. Comper or Dr. Kutcher or asked by the NHLPA to testify at the hearing about Mr. Wideman's supposed "confusional state. " '

Add to that the contents of footnote 8 - Wideman testified that he intentionally misled the public about his symptoms because someone told him to.

I note that Mr. Wideman gave a post-game interview in which he essentially denied having been "woozy. " Mr. Wideman testified at the hearing that he had been instructed to give a misleading answer if asked about his condition and that he followed that instruction.

If Wideman intentionally gave a misleading public statement regarding his symptoms then there is serious cause to not just accept at face value the truthfulness of his privately self-reported symptoms to two experts hired to help him in a disciplinary hearing.

I asked in the other thread how can Bettman find the original decision is based on "clear and convincing" evidence when a concussion was conceded...and this is pretty much exactly how. He finds Wideman to be dishonest about his self-reported symptoms (based on actual testimony from Wideman that he was previously dishonest about his symptoms) and then gets the experts to agree that he could have a concussion and also not have the symptoms they relied upon to form their conclusions.

Then he rejects the expert conclusions and the testimony of Wideman and he is left with the video and no evidence from which to conclude Wideman was actually affected by the concussion it is conceded he suffered at the moment of the hit on the official.

So, the question now for me will be whether the next appeal will include additional evidence (which is still somewhat strangely permitted) and how that additional evidence may impact on the NDA's standard of review. CBA Section 18.13(c):

The NDA shall hold an in-person hearing and shall determine whether the final decision of the League regarding whether the Player's conduct violated the League Playing Rules and whether the length of the suspension imposed were supported by substantial evidence. The NDA shall issue an opinion and award as soon as practicable. The NDA shall have the authority to consider any evidence relating to the incident even if such evidence was not available at the time of the initial Supplementary Discipline for On-Ice Conduct decision or at the time of the Commissioner's decision in connection with the appeal. The NDA shall have full remedial authority in respect of the matter should he/she determine that the Commissioner's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. The NDA's decision shall be final and binding in all respects and not subject to review.