Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
Oh my god buddy. I've quoted the testimony of the expert doctor that the NHLPA hired as the reason. 
What he told his expert witness, according to the expert witness testimony (not purplemonkeydishwashered) was that he " vaguely remembers skating to the bench. He remembers some incident occurring, but
he does not recall who he hit [or] how he hit the individual. " (Direct quote). |
So you're refuting my issue of not having a statement directly from Wideman with a statement, not from Wideman?
I don't think his first statement was very explicit in how he skated to the bench, who or how he hit him...it was similarly vague. I'm just not seeing the same smoking gun here as you.
Quote:
Read the report. The primary defence is no longer Wideman accidentally skated into Henderson. The NHLPA retained two experts to address
"whether the Player's ability to formulate an intention to make contact with the [linesman] was
adversely affected at. . . the time of the events and, if so, the extent to which his ability to formulate an
intention was affected." They testified about impulse control, situational awareness, confusion, anger issues, etc. that come from concussions.
|
Again, you're making a huge leap here. Of course their defence is still that he accidentally skated into him. All of the concussion stuff is to explain how it was accidental despite it appearing like he should have been able to see Henderon and avoid him, and why his reaction (follow through) might have been stronger than it could/should have been. These hearings were 7 hours long, that's not all that those experts talked about, and they did not change to a temporary insanity defence...