[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

So you're refuting my issue of not having a statement directly from Wideman with a statement, not from Wideman?

I'm refuting your statement that all we have on the issue is that "it has been purplemonkeydishwashered through media talking heads."

Take a step back, forget this is a Flames player, forget this is a hockey issue at all.

What we have is the NHLPA retaining a medical doctor, an expert in the field of concussions, under oath saying that Wideman told him that he vaguely remembered the incident. Seeing as there would be serious repercussions to Dr. Kutcher if that was anything but the case, I think we should take that at face value. Especially as that's the defence's expert here. With no reason to suggest otherwise, I think it's stupid to suggest that Wideman did not make that statement to Dr. Kutcher.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Yeah, sorry Oling. I'm on the side that thinks the suspension is justified, but the union arguing that Wideman's mental state was such that he could not intentionally choose to harm Henderson is still very much an argument that Wideman accidentally skated into Henderson.

I would agree with that, I think there's a bit of a difference between accident (i.e. he just ran into him) and non-deliberate act (i.e. he saw he was there but his only intention was getting to the bench so he bulled through him due to the diminished mental state). In any case, the NHLPA contention was that as a result of the hit, and the subsequent concussion that Wideman was in a diminished mental and physical state. And I do think it's reasonable argument.

My point has always been that, seeing as that the primary defence was Wideman suffering a concussion, Wideman had reason to play up his concussion symptoms to the doctors. And I believe that's exactly what happened. The doctors should have been aware of that and made an effort to try and determine if Wideman was telling the truth. Certainly not an easy task, but even a little bit of due diligence would have had them asking the medical staff who examined him at the game. Questioning why he said he wasn't woozy after the hit to the media. Etc.

And you would agree with me that Mr. Wideman certainly had, at least
potentially, the motive to exaggerate his symptoms in order to obtain a report that
said he wasn't responsible for his actions, that's at least a possibility, isn't it?
A. It's a possibility.

Dr. Comper see's it as a possibility on cross-examination. It's certainly not far fetched here.

Originally Posted by Benched

Pretty sure Bettman and the NHL took awhile because this will be a precident setting case. Lowering the suspension or admitting Wideman "made poor decisions after he was concussed" as a valid excuse would open up every decision past, present, future.

Exactly, setting that precedence would have serious repercussions.



Imagine that Chris Simon incident happening with that sort of precedent set. Simon saying he was confused and concussed after the initial hit and didn't know what he was doing, or his impulse control was out of whack whatever. Should he not have received 25 games for the two handed whack?