Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
There are people willfully ignorant of the situation. They believe that Wideman accidentally ran into the linesman after getting hit. They don't believe anyone would be stupid enough to attack an official. That's fine, I can appreciate that. Hell, it's very plausible that is what happened.
However, that's not the stance that was taken in the hearing. Wideman argued he doesn't know what happened. The experts argued that he may have deliberately (if not 'consciously') attacked the ref because of the behavourial affects of concussions including aggressiveness, combativeness, and poor impulse control. But if that is the case, Wideman is a piece of #### for blaming the media when he may have 'intentionally' attacked a ref and is mad at media for mentioning it (again, he can't say he didn't attack the linesman because he doesn't remember the incident) or he's a piece of #### for lying and saying he doesn't remember the incident to get a concussion diagnosis.
Either way I have 0 respect for him.
|
Why do I get the feeling that - if this were the 1800's - you'd be one of the people whipping up a mob to get 'justice' for your beliefs.
Dial it back already. Nobody likes that it happened, no matter their stance on it.
May be just me, but I'd rather have no hockey talk going on over the summer than have to hear about this story any more.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk