Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
It's not mental gymnastics because you are assuming that there's just this history to look at as evidence. It won't be the case. There will be his own evidence. There would be expert psychological evidence based on actual examinations. There would be evidence from experts on sports careers. This is no more difficult than any case for damages due to psychological harm.
All that said, I don't even know if he's looking at a lawsuit as opposed to having lawyers to help him work with the NHL on a deal to improve the issue going forward, in which he's a participant (probably for compensation).
|
I am not sure what you are arguing. I didn’t make the assumption you assert, but I certainly point to his record as data to be considered as evidential of his ceiling.
My basic musing way back was if he were to make a case that his career was derailed, how he could actually make that case. Throw all of the experts at it that you like, the best you can do is say *maybe* things could have turned out better, but you still can’t outline with a reasonable degree of probability at all what the different outcome would have been, what magical ceiling he might have had beyond what he accomplished.
So yes, imagining a substantially different outcome I believe does take mental gymnastics.
If he was demoted and never got a sniff of the AHL again, that’s one thing, but he caught on with another organization and was in the NHL just 2 years later. He had a chance very early in his career.
Consistency, work ethic and discipline were identified by central scouting as concerns.
As mentioned, I wondered how he could make a case, on the balance of probability, as to what quantifiable damages he sustained, and nothing I have seen establishes that.
Like you say, he may not be pursuing a lawsuit, and I do hope that his angle is to be a change agent to some extent, for the better.