From my reading of the CBA, I think the one part that was rather clear is the part Oldham screwed up on. The agreement says the NDA must first decide whether the commissioner had "substantive evidence" to come to the decision he did. If he finds that was not the case, then the issue becomes confusing and the arbitrator can pretty much do what he wants. Everything Oldham said pointed to agreeing that Bettman had substantive evidence, but he just threw all that out anyway.
I disagree also that the appeals court ruling against the NHLPA on this one would render the arbitrator "nearly powerless". Though that is context dependent. Given my view above, if Oldham basically agrees with Bettman on the key points; namely: Application of rule 40 was proper, ergo agrees Wideman's actions were deliberate, and accepting Henderson was injured, then yes, Oldham should have been nearly powerless to change Bettman's ruling. Rule 40 makes it very clear what is a 20 gamer, and what is 10. And in this interpretation, Bettman properly applied the rule, while Oldham did not.
However, as someone who enjoys a little chaos from time to time, there remains the possibility of one hell of a pyrrhic victory. If the circuit court sides with the NHL and vacates the arbitrator's decision, then theoretically it would be back to the NHLPA to decide if they wish to appeal again to another NDA. I would suggest it is possible that a second arbitrator could look at the evidence, focus on Wideman being concussed and argue that Bettman did not have substantive evidence to make the call he did (satisfying the first part of the NDA's duties). If the arbitrator then decided that owing to being injured himself, Wideman was not aware of his surroundings or actions, could decide the contact was incidental, and NO suspension was warranted. And in my total layman's perspective, I think a decision such as that would be far more sound legally than what Oldham came up with.
|