Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Can't agree with this... if you're playing during the appeal, it simply incentivizes speeding up the appeal process, and if the appeal is rejected (eg original suspension upheld), you still serve the 20 games, you just serve a different 20 games. No reason to suspect those won't be more important games than the ones you were playing while the appeal was pending. Arguably, they likely will be more important because they'll inevitably be later in the season.
|
Again, you are pointing to the extreme case and not the typical one. The typical scenario is a very short suspension, where the 'value' of the upcoming opponents is easy to discern.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delgar
And likewise I agree that what you've said is possible. Being a skeptic however I suggest that Bettman is naturally predisposed to agree with the subordinates he hired to do their jobs. Consider one example... if Bettman said they got it wrong and overturned them, couldn't that suggest he had the wrong people in those positions?
Independence matters.
|
We all knew Bettman would uphold the suspension, and yup, independence matters. That's why we have the independent arbitrator now But Bettman did not 'rubber stamp' the decision, as others claimed. He and the NHL's lawyers very carefully crafted a ruling designed to withstand not only the arbitrator, but also shields the league as best it can in the concussion lawsuits. That was a time intensive process. Likewise, the briefs from both sides leading into Bettman's hearing, and even more so leading into this hearing on both sides. Both the NHL and NHLPA are basically looking to create legal precedents.