Maybe a stupid question, but from a legal perspective, how is the neutrality of an arbitrator established? Everyone has personal biases. Even a non-hockey fan is going to have a bias (and likely not in favour of Wideman since most non-hockey fans wouldn't understand the physics of the game and one of the biggest complaints from non-hockey fans is that the game is too violent).
Is it just a matter of taking an oath?
Also, are precedents for punishment important here? I think the NHL can easily argue that they want to set a new precedent, therefore old ones don't apply.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 02-25-2016 at 03:37 PM.
|