Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
there simply isn't a point if it is your opinion that he 'attacked' Henderson, as we're simply not discussing on the same plane. I can certainly appreciate how that can be the knee-jerk reaction from seeing the GIF once or twice, but I think the malicious intent argument is the least likely.
|
But that's not my opinion.
That's Wideman's doctor's opinion.
Quote:
"striking of the official could both plausibly and probably be attributed to his confusional
state while he was in the immediate post-concussion phase. Indeed, behavioural changes — including
aggressive and even combative behaviours — are commonly reported behavioural hallmarks of head
trauma. " (Exh. 19)
|
Again, the experts argued that Wideman may have attacked the linesman because of the behavourial affects of concussion. That is not my stance. That is the opinion of the experts hired by the NHLPA.
Why are you dismissing Wideman's experts so readily?