Quote:
Originally Posted by taxbuster
The arbitrator didn't "change" anything. He made an analysis of the situation, applied his interpretation of the rules in the CBA as they applied to the situation at hand (correctly or incorrectly) and issued a decision. There is no "legal precedent" from this - another arbitrator in a similar situation may choose to rule quite differently. Apparently, the decision also isn't viewed by the NHL as overly binding as the NHL is now seeking to challenge it.
|
The CBA gives the neutral discipline arbitrator two tasks. The first is to determine if the commissioner had "substantive evidence" to support his decision. It is only if he finds the commissioner does not have substantive evidence that he can apply his own punishment.
The NHL is arguing that he didn't consider the first question at all - which invalidates his later judgment. Oldham had an obligation under the CBA to first decide if Bettman had that evidence. Instead, he simply ignored Bettman's decision and re-litigated. This, according to the NHL, exceeded his mandate.
Quote:
|
An arbitrator who is engaged (and is dismissible) by the league is not likely to be viewed by outsiders as "neutral". Credit to the guy who clearly ignored that bit of manipulation.
|
The arbitrators are dismissable by either side, and therefore are "manipulated" by both sides. Your credit is horribly misplaced.