Quote:
Originally Posted by Cube Inmate
Gary took close to a week to craft his decision. Now, he probably took his time because (a) it makes things suck more for Wideman/Flames, and (b) he wanted to "bulletproof" his case because he knew it would be taken to an arbitrator. But regardless of any of Gary's extra delays, it still takes time to consider a decision.
Do we expect an arbitrator to make a decision in 24 hours? Even 48 hours? I have to assume that the arbitrator is expected to go into this "blind" -- not reviewing the evidence beforehand, and relying only on that which is presented at the hearings. I have a very hard time believing that he'll be willing to rule without taking at least a couple of days to digest all the evidence presented.
Prediction: ruling comes down late on Monday afternoon. At that point, it doesn't matter what the result is.
|
I'm fine with how long it took Bettman to render his decision. The league knew this one was likely going to an arbitrator so they needed to have everything in order as this would be the first one under the new CBA and would set a precedent for every case in the future. Really it took three days (announced on the fourth) for the league to rule which isn't too bad in my opinion. What I don't understand is the time lag in the arbitrator hearing the case, and for that matter why they even need to hear anything at all. Why are they simply not just given all the evidence presented to date to review. If they ave further questions they could always ask. Correct me if I am wrong but when someone appeals a legal decision the appeals judge reviews the case facts and makes their ruling based on that, they don't have another trial. Why can't it work that way in this case?