Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Despite the simple-minded arguments of some fans, this was never about Bettman's ego. The league had a legitimate concern about the intent of the process. And if not for a silly contradiction that got through all the lawyers, I think they may well have prevailed.
|
I'm not sure the contradiction was "silly" so much as "unintended" or maybe "unanticipated". This happens in tax law surprisingly often and typically seems to be where the drafters of the law fail to consider somewhat opposing fact situations within a given single event or series. You can't have an "if this then that" when the "then that" cannot be carried out or ascertained. Such is what it seems to be here.
In this case I believe it *was* Bettman's ego talking: he should have known that the only question is whether the Arbitrator met the standard of review - but he couldn't let go of the fact that NDA's decision reversed his own.
Anyway - interesting reading and I hope this just puts it to bed. I'm pretty sure the language will be different in the next CBA.
