2. The second story is that he dazed/woozy/foggy and doesn't really remember or only has a vague idea of what happened. Firstly, I don't think we've had any concrete statements directly from Wideman, and everything related to this has been purplemonkeydishwashered through media talking heads. (I haven't read the transcripts yet, so I'm sure there is clearer evidence there, but to this point all discussion has been based on speculation)
Oh my god buddy. I've quoted the testimony of the expert doctor that the NHLPA hired as the reason.
In one situation Wideman is saying that he looked up, saw Don Henderson last second and couldn't get out of the way. A very fair possibility.
What he told his expert witness, according to the expert witness testimony (not purplemonkeydishwashered) was that he "vaguely remembers skating to the bench. He remembers some incident occurring, but
he does not recall who he hit [or] how he hit the individual. " (Direct quote).
So in one story he just accidentally hits Don Henderson, no biggie. In the other one, the story he told to get the concussion diagnosis, he was telling his doc that he can't even remember who he hit.
Those aren't remotely the same. This isn't the same as falling on ice on the way to the supermarket and not remembering which foot slipped. It's the equivalent of you coming back 2 days from now and saying you remember slipping on a banana peel while blaming the banana industry.
Read the report. The primary defence is no longer Wideman accidentally skated into Henderson. The NHLPA retained two experts to address
"whether the Player's ability to formulate an intention to make contact with the [linesman] was
adversely affected at. . . the time of the events and, if so, the extent to which his ability to formulate an
intention was affected." They testified about impulse control, situational awareness, confusion, anger issues, etc. that come from concussions.
Again, from one of Wideman's expert witness mouth (not some media talking head):
Quote:
"it is my view that Mr. Wideman's usual capacity to exercise his
judgment and to control his impulses was significantly affected by the head trauma that he experienced
during the January 27, 2016 game for the period immediately after that incident. "
The NHLPA and Wideman rolled the dice by making this a concussion issue, no longer just incidental contact. Wideman, I believe, played up his concussion symptoms to the experts, who had previously been hired by the NHLPA regarding concussions, who had no interest in actually looking at the details (of note, they didn't ask the medical staff there at the time of the incident and didn't take Wideman out of the game - perhaps another issue). Wideman gave them the answers he knew they wanted to hear. When asked what he remembers of the incident at the time he told him he vaguely remembers..blah blah blah.
It's getting close to a murder defence pleading not guilty by reason of insanity while the murderer is saying he's mentally stable but just accidentally pushed that old lady down the stairs. That's not going to work out well.
Wideman has pretty much become a pawn in a game of chess between the NHL and NHLPA regarding the concussion issue. Still doesn't excuse him.
This is sports, not academia...there is pretty much always some prejudice or bias among any fan (yes, even with say a random Rangers fan who pays no more attention to the Flames than any of the other WC clubs).
Thanks for this, well said.
If you don't agree with someone then feel free to explain why you think they're wrong. Hell, tear their argument to shreds if you have to, just be constructive about it.
There's nothing constructive about calling someone a 'homer'. It's just extremely disrespectful.
I personally feel that this was an accident (I wrote about it on my rarely updated Blog) but see why Wideman was going to be suspended.
I think the NHL had an out here. Suspend Wideman 10 games while pointing to Wideman's clean past and how the player deserves the benefit of the doubt in this, but explain that the NHL has to protect the refs and how players need to be aware of EVERYONE on the ice.
Instead they're throwing Wideman under the bus and making him a sacrificial lamb for whatever reason.
Gary is the commissioner of a hockey league that's popularity is 100% to do with the players on the ice. Making a players personal email to another player public in an effort to discredit him is beyond stupid. Gary already doesn't have a very good relationship with the players/union and this certainly doesn't help.
And if Bettman had said "we have text messages that do not favour Wideman's cause" and failed to elaborate, you would be sitting here whining that Bettman was making things up to discredit Wideman. As such, it is easy to discredit your claim for being the two faced argument it is.
Wideman discredited himself with his text, and Bettman has a responsibility to fully explain his reasoning when he makes these decisions. Once again, you seem intent on blaming everyone but Dennis Wideman for Dennis Wideman's actions.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
I also agree that there had to have been a suspension but i don't agree with the nhl saying it was a deliberate act to justify 20 games.
I also don't like the use of the text. I haven't read the report, so i don't know if there was more to the text then what is reported. If it was a text between teammates asking for an update after or during the hearing and Wideman is getting the impression he is being railroaded, then i don't think the text is showing no remorse. It is showing frustration in the process.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Robbob For This Useful Post:
Been a Flames fan forever but there is no doubt in my mind that Wideman did it deliberately. Don't give me the bull about "watch his feet". Watch his arms; he definitely drives his arms and stick into the linesman. Quit defending someone who acted like a thug because he had a good record. He did it. He deserved the suspension and is lucky he didn't get more.
This post and others like it bug me. It's quite clear that there are several different but valid viewpoints on this. I still think that Wideman's statements are not inconsistent (one can barely remember an incident days after it happened, and be woozy or whatever and give a statement like "I only saw him at the last minute" without lying). But I can also recognize, without dismissing them, the completely reasonable arguments of those who differ.
On another topic, I see that the arbitrator has wider powers of review than the court of appeal in a civil lawsuit. It looks as though he can simply disagree with the conclusion reached by Bettman as opposed to having to find a legal error.
Again, I think though that the choice is no suspension (because it was accidental) or lengthy suspension (because it was intentional abuse of an official). There's no room for "reckless but unintentional" in the rules, and IMO there's no "minor" abuse of an official, unless it's maybe angrily trying to shake off a linesman who is grabbing you in a fight.
Oh my god buddy. I've quoted the testimony of the expert doctor that the NHLPA hired as the reason.
What he told his expert witness, according to the expert witness testimony (not purplemonkeydishwashered) was that he "vaguely remembers skating to the bench. He remembers some incident occurring, but
he does not recall who he hit [or] how he hit the individual. " (Direct quote).
So you're refuting my issue of not having a statement directly from Wideman with a statement, not from Wideman?
I don't think his first statement was very explicit in how he skated to the bench, who or how he hit him...it was similarly vague. I'm just not seeing the same smoking gun here as you.
Quote:
Read the report. The primary defence is no longer Wideman accidentally skated into Henderson. The NHLPA retained two experts to address
"whether the Player's ability to formulate an intention to make contact with the [linesman] was
adversely affected at. . . the time of the events and, if so, the extent to which his ability to formulate an
intention was affected." They testified about impulse control, situational awareness, confusion, anger issues, etc. that come from concussions.
Again, you're making a huge leap here. Of course their defence is still that he accidentally skated into him. All of the concussion stuff is to explain how it was accidental despite it appearing like he should have been able to see Henderon and avoid him, and why his reaction (follow through) might have been stronger than it could/should have been. These hearings were 7 hours long, that's not all that those experts talked about, and they did not change to a temporary insanity defence...
Yeah, sorry Oling. I'm on the side that thinks the suspension is justified, but the union arguing that Wideman's mental state was such that he could not intentionally choose to harm Henderson is still very much an argument that Wideman accidentally skated into Henderson.
So if Wideman's text said something like "It sucks because it was an accident, I'm only here because the stupid refs and stupid media" would that have helped his case?
So if Wideman's text said something like "It sucks because it was an accident, I'm only here because the stupid refs and stupid media" would that have helped his case?
It would have been consistent with his case, but probably wouldn't help the result (both because it's self serving and not politically smart).
Pretty sure Bettman and the NHL took awhile because this will be a precident setting case. Lowering the suspension or admitting Wideman "made poor decisions after he was concussed" as a valid excuse would open up every decision past, present, future. Hell Kadri was already busting it out for his throat slash excuse. I can see Bettmans using any and all tools to discredit the concussion angle.
The NHLPA on the other hand has a vested interest in proving that concussions are hugely problematic, and opens the door for more litigation against the league for lost revenue from suspensions, injured players, etc. (and 500k lost revenue for a player in this instance).
this is all taking place during a concussion lawsuit.
Besides the optics and PR disaster of this, the precident of concussion symptoms and their effect on a players decisions/actions is the real issue here.
Just look at other player vs. linesmen issues where a player steam rolls them (Y. Weber for example) Nothing. Not a peep, not a game suspension.
Optics made this an issue, but now it's not about Wideman, it's all part of a bigger ongoing responsibility issue surrounding concussions.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Benched For This Useful Post:
FWIW I think a 20 game suspension would be far too light if the act were in fact deliberate as the NHL claims. I would say at least a 41 game ban for any player without prior history or a full 82 for a repeat offender. And I am not a blind hater of Bettman and the NHL, but I think their supplemental discipline process continues to be a joke.
I also think there should be at the very least a fine, if not 1 game suspension for any unnecessary contact with an official - see Wideman, Weber, Muzzin, Smith, Lucic and Joseph. It would require a small amount of common sense to see that the Bollig/Henderson incident wouldn't warrant anything (Bollig does everything possible to avoid contact with the official), but it seems that kind of common sense is hard to find.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
First of all, I don’t like it. Just like I don’t like judging the NHL on its emails released as part of discovery for the concussion lawsuit. I like to see the full chain for full context. We rush to judgment without the whole picture too often these days. I was disappointed to see Wideman’s text included.
Bush league stuff by the NHL.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ashasx For This Useful Post:
So you're refuting my issue of not having a statement directly from Wideman with a statement, not from Wideman?
I'm refuting your statement that all we have on the issue is that "it has been purplemonkeydishwashered through media talking heads."
Take a step back, forget this is a Flames player, forget this is a hockey issue at all.
What we have is the NHLPA retaining a medical doctor, an expert in the field of concussions, under oath saying that Wideman told him that he vaguely remembered the incident. Seeing as there would be serious repercussions to Dr. Kutcher if that was anything but the case, I think we should take that at face value. Especially as that's the defence's expert here. With no reason to suggest otherwise, I think it's stupid to suggest that Wideman did not make that statement to Dr. Kutcher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Yeah, sorry Oling. I'm on the side that thinks the suspension is justified, but the union arguing that Wideman's mental state was such that he could not intentionally choose to harm Henderson is still very much an argument that Wideman accidentally skated into Henderson.
I would agree with that, I think there's a bit of a difference between accident (i.e. he just ran into him) and non-deliberate act (i.e. he saw he was there but his only intention was getting to the bench so he bulled through him due to the diminished mental state). In any case, the NHLPA contention was that as a result of the hit, and the subsequent concussion that Wideman was in a diminished mental and physical state. And I do think it's reasonable argument.
My point has always been that, seeing as that the primary defence was Wideman suffering a concussion, Wideman had reason to play up his concussion symptoms to the doctors. And I believe that's exactly what happened. The doctors should have been aware of that and made an effort to try and determine if Wideman was telling the truth. Certainly not an easy task, but even a little bit of due diligence would have had them asking the medical staff who examined him at the game. Questioning why he said he wasn't woozy after the hit to the media. Etc.
Quote:
And you would agree with me that Mr. Wideman certainly had, at least
potentially, the motive to exaggerate his symptoms in order to obtain a report that
said he wasn't responsible for his actions, that's at least a possibility, isn't it?
A. It's a possibility.
Dr. Comper see's it as a possibility on cross-examination. It's certainly not far fetched here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benched
Pretty sure Bettman and the NHL took awhile because this will be a precident setting case. Lowering the suspension or admitting Wideman "made poor decisions after he was concussed" as a valid excuse would open up every decision past, present, future.
Exactly, setting that precedence would have serious repercussions.
Imagine that Chris Simon incident happening with that sort of precedent set. Simon saying he was confused and concussed after the initial hit and didn't know what he was doing, or his impulse control was out of whack whatever. Should he not have received 25 games for the two handed whack?
Are we all looking at the same hit? Am I the only one that thinks Wideman got off easy with only 20 games?
What details am I missing here that has CP in an uproar? Cause this is pretty extreme homerism, even for here.
This incident would make a great thesis for a masters degree in psychology. Two completely opposite views of what happened despite a pretty clear video...
I think Wideman was rightfully pissed off.... took an illegal hit on the boards and nothing was called... He was hurting and took it out on the ref in a momentary loss of reason out of anger.... It happens... people get pushed over the limit and snap... some people own up to it right away and others deny deny deny...
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to 442scotty For This Useful Post:
This is just another of those threads that after a while, once everyone has their say, needs to be closed... Just creates bad blood among people on here... No winners here
This is just another of those threads that after a while, once everyone has their say, needs to be closed... Just creates bad blood among people on here... No winners here
The clear winner here are the Flames for not having him in the line up.
