[News] Arbitrator reduces Wideman suspension to 10 games from 20

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Lol. Athlete breaking official's neck is a pretty big deal.

Wideman is scum, his career should be tainted by this and the story shouldn't go away. Not when Henderson just had to undergo surgery recently.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

What are you talking about? The NHL even admitted that the Salomaki hit on Wideman caused a concussion.

The team physician Ian Auld preformed the concussion protocol on Wideman after the game, and it was positive.

The NHL never really admitted that Wideman had a concussion. The agreed facts were that Wideman was diagnosed with a concussion because he was - by experts hired by the NHLPA. While it wasn't a fight that they were particular interesting in fighting, because as you said the hit was noted by the spotter, Bettman alludes to the fact that he doesn't necessarily believe Wideman's concussion symptoms in the report multiple times.

Originally Posted by Bettman's Decision

Those conclusions were based on little more than Mr. Wideman's own subjective report of concussion symptoms that he may or may not have actually experienced.

However, he was diagnosed with a concussion several days after the game. Through Facetime. After playing a couple rounds of golf and hiking with his family in Arizona. This is all fact.

Directly after the game he called the incident an accident, he didn't see the linesman until too late. He said he was feeling fine, explicitly said he wasn't feeling woozy.

However, in his conversation with the doctors, again over Facetime days after the incident, he talked about feeling woozy, not recalling the hit, only vaguely remembering the incident. Etc. etc. While concussions affect people differently and may not materialize until after, a cynic (or realist) would describe Wideman's answers as canned. Bettman alluded to that several times in his decision, and I would agree with him. I think it's obvious that Wideman was coached to say what he did to get the concussion diagnosis (this is not arguing he did not have a concussion).

The experts who diagnosed him as having a concussion have skin in the game. They are the same experts hired by the NHLPA for other concussion issues over several years. They are not independent neutral experts, they were going to argue in favour of Wideman no matter what.

Wideman certainly could have been concussed. I don't think I have argued otherwise. However, I think it's very apparent that he also exaggerated his symptoms to use it as a defense. Let's remember that Wideman himself said that this was the media's fault...if he couldn't remember the incident as he told the experts, why would he blame the media and not his own concussion that forced him to attack a linesman?

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

You're making things up about the incident, because of blind hatred for Wideman.

Where does my blind-hatred from Wideman come from? I made my mind-up on him after reading the decision that included the facts of the situation. That's the direct opposite of blind-hatred. In fact, if you read my posts before the incident, I was very much defending Wideman as a good hockey player.

The irony here, is me, being a hardcore Flames fan, would have a blind-hatred of a Flames player. You don't think it's the opposite? The people defending Wideman happen to be Flames fans isn't blind-love?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

why would he blame the media and not his own concussion that forced him to attack a linesman?

Without re-hashing everything we've done before concerning your certain assertions based on transcripts of what happened Bettman's summary of what happened (dr's are biased but Bettman isn't?)...there simply isn't a point if it is your opinion that he 'attacked' Henderson, as we're simply not discussing on the same plane. I can certainly appreciate how that can be the knee-jerk reaction from seeing the GIF once or twice, but I think the malicious intent argument is the least likely.

You love to rail on skeptically about Wideman's description of symptoms worsening over the days after the incident...Henderson finished the game and has subsequently had significant medical issues since. Where's your skepticism there? You may argue that Wideman had incentive to exaggerate and Henderson did not...but you'd be ignoring the possibility of a WCB type situation for a guy that might have been forced to hang them up against his will soon anyways. I am in know way suggesting that's the case, but IMO it might be equally plausible.

Also, Wideman's texts don't look great, but they aren't a smoking gun either. They were true...simply bad optics.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

there simply isn't a point if it is your opinion that he 'attacked' Henderson, as we're simply not discussing on the same plane. I can certainly appreciate how that can be the knee-jerk reaction from seeing the GIF once or twice, but I think the malicious intent argument is the least likely.

But that's not my opinion.

That's Wideman's doctor's opinion.

"striking of the official could both plausibly and probably be attributed to his confusional
state while he was in the immediate post-concussion phase. Indeed, behavioural changes — including
aggressive and even combative behaviours — are commonly reported behavioural hallmarks of head
trauma. " (Exh. 19)

Again, the experts argued that Wideman may have attacked the linesman because of the behavourial affects of concussion. That is not my stance. That is the opinion of the experts hired by the NHLPA.

Why are you dismissing Wideman's experts so readily?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

But that's not my opinion.

That's Wideman's doctor's opinion.



Again, the experts argued that Wideman may have attacked the linesman because of the behavourial affects of concussion. That is not my stance. That is the opinion of the experts hired by the NHLPA.

Why are you dismissing Wideman's experts so readily?

You're being daft...re-read your quote. Expert was speaking hypothetically, based on peer-reviewed medical science. He never came anywhere close to saying he thought Wideman attacked Henderson because he was concussed. It was basically that IF you want to believe it was an 'attack', the behaviour could conceivably be explained by a concussion.

But go ahead and keep quoting the only excerpts available to us without full context (via Bettman) as conclusive evidence.

[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.

[Wiggum_PI]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

The NHL never really admitted that Wideman had a concussion.

Uh, actually yes, the league did admit that Wideman had a concussion. It's in both the Bettman and Oldham rulings.

Bettman's "Summary of Facts"

As set forth in reports filed by each of the four on-ice officials (Exh. E), none of the officials saw
what had happened. No on-ice penalty was called on Mr. Wideman. Messrs. Henderson and Wideman
both continued in the game and both were subsequently diagnosed as having suffered concussions.

Oldham's "Positions of the Parties"

There is no dispute that the Salomaki check against the boards produced a concussion. This was
confirmed by application of the concussion protocol after the incident was over and Wideman was
examined by Dr. Auld.

The League acknowledges that Wideman suffered a concussion from the Salomaki crosscheck,
but points out that Mr. Henderson also suffered a concussion.

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

The agreed facts were that Wideman was diagnosed with a concussion because he was - by experts hired by the NHLPA.

This is also wrong. Wideman was not diagnosed with a concussion by the hired NHLPA experts. They were brought in to testify what Wideman's mindset was immediately following the hit. Bettman didn't believe their testimony, because they did not actually diagnose his medical condition.

From Bettman's ruling.

As noted, I accept that Drs. Comper and Kutcher are experts in neuropsychology and neurology,
respectively. However, although they are experienced clinicians, neither treated Mr. Wideman or was
responsible for diagnosing his medical condition. Moreover, their testimony was not simply about the
diagnosis or symptomology of concussions. Rather, both were retained by the NHLPA (for whom each
has performed services for many years) for the purpose of opining as to what his mental and/or physical
state was at the time of the incident in question.

[Lord Carnage]

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

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

You're being daft...re-read your quote..

You mean when he said it was possible and plausible?

Likewise, Dr. Kutcher hedged during cross-examination as to his conclusion on the same
question:
A. I mean human behaviors, physical behaviors, emotional behaviors, verbal ones
that we suppress all the time, in a concussed state can come to the surface.
Q. Do you believe that's what happened?
A. Yes.
Q. That there was a loss of impulse control?
A. Yes.

This one was pretty explicit. Yes, neither expert took a stance that wasn't hypothetical because that's the nature of concussions. Especially when their patient can't remember the incident in question, it all can only be hypothetical.

The point was that Wideman, if he is to be believed, may have intentionally attacked Henderson (and I emphasis this) because of the concussion he received. Not even he could be sure, as he doesn't remember. If that's the case, then we can sympathy with both Wideman and Henderson. However, in that case Wideman should have been remorseful for his actions (even if he didn't recall or have control at the time). Instead he blamed the stupid refs and stupid media...while Henderson's career may be over.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

You mean when he said it was possible and plausible?



This one was pretty explicit. Yes, neither expert took a stance that wasn't hypothetical because that's the nature of concussions. Especially when their patient can't remember the incident in question, it all can only be hypothetical.

The point was that Wideman, if he is to be believed, may have intentionally attacked Henderson (and I emphasis this) because of the concussion he received. Not even he could be sure, as he doesn't remember. If that's the case, then we can sympathy with both Wideman and Henderson. However, in that case Wideman should have been remorseful for his actions (even if he didn't recall or have control at the time). Instead he blamed the stupid refs and stupid media...while Henderson's career may be over.

So what you're mad about is that Wideman wasn't remorseful. My take is that since he had a concussion, it could be said that he isn't responsible for his actions.

Lets face it the refs do have a stake in this and with pressure from the refs and under the guise of protecting them, Bettman made his decision. So yeah, in Wideman's mind the stupid refs and the stupid media were out for blood.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

So what you're mad about is that Wideman wasn't remorseful. My take is that since he had a concussion, it could be said that he isn't responsible for his actions.

Yes, I am mad that a thug of a hockey player may have ended the career of an official and was not remorseful of it. How could you not be? If he had a concussion, or if it was strictly an accident, that's still a disgusting, classless attitude. Again, if we take what Wideman said at face value, the best case scenario is he doesn't know what happened. It could be an accident, he could have lost control like his experts argued. He doesn't know, yet he refused to take responsibility at all, instead blames the stupid refs...as their colleague is in a hospital.

However, I don't quite believe everything Wideman said to the experts which means I think he is lying on top of the above.

The thing is, this is a Flames player we're talking about on a Flames website. On the other hockey sites, the stance on Wideman is very much different. Calling him scum is the norm really.

[Locke]

I dont get the outrage.

Wideman has had what, 750 NHL games without a suspension?

So all of a sudden, after all that he chooses to take some aggression out on an official?

This has nothing to do with Wideman, its politics, and I dont mean that in a tinfoil hat kind of way.

If Wideman had a concussion the NHL is in trouble. If the ref was crap the NHL is in trouble. If the Arbitrator got it wrong the NHL is in trouble.

So in short: The NHL is in trouble.

This has nothing at all to do with Wideman, hes just an unfortunate but convenient scapegoat but at the same time, you cant just let this go.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont get the outrage.

There's an official who's career may be ended because of the actions of an athlete. It's not hard to understand the outrage when you remove the homer-glasses.

"I don't see the outrage. Moore was a nobody who went after our captain, he had it coming."
-Vancouver Fans 2004.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Yes, I am mad that a thug of a hockey player may have ended the career of an official and was not remorseful of it.

You have no idea how Wideman feels, you're inferring an awful lot form a cherry-picked text. It's a typical legal thing...you don't publicly apologize even if you want to. You're also forgetting that he apologized on the ice.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

It's a typical legal thing...you don't publicly apologize even if you want to. .

That's the exact opposite of what happened. He privately, so he thought, blamed others for his actions (intentional or not).

And again, my biggest issue:

Directly after game: I looked up, saw too late, braced for impact and accidentally hit the linesman.

Four days later: I don't recall the incident in question.

The fact that his sudden loss of memory was while being questioned by the experts who were going to throw anything at the wall hoping something stuck was convenient.

If it was an accident, and Wideman just stuck to it being an accident, my tune would be completely different. I think it's quite apparent he said what the experts 'wanted' to hear in order to give them the most ammunition.

The funny thing is, anyone arguing it was an accident is now implicitly calling Wideman a liar as not even he, apparently, knows what was going through his head at the time.

[wired]

Shut it down fellas. Its history, let it go.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

There's an official who's career may be ended because of the actions of an athlete. It's not hard to understand the outrage when you remove the homer-glasses.

"I don't see the outrage. Moore was a nobody who went after our captain, he had it coming."

So by your logic the referee who hauled down Yakupov and injured him is scum as well right?

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Lol. Athlete breaking official's neck is a pretty big deal.

Wideman is scum, his career should be tainted by this and the story shouldn't go away. Not when Henderson just had to undergo surgery recently.

Scum eh? That seems like a stretch. He went his whole career incident free untill these. You even agreed this whole last page that it was most likely due to a concussion he suffered. He obviously was not in a sound state of mind. That dosen't make him scum.

Scum bag people are people that are those that are sou d of mind and do ######bag or criminal thing. Buttows and Marchand, Torres and Cook are prime examples of scum. I wouldn't classify a man with head truama during the incident as scum. It was a stupid action for sure but if he did this with out the head injury then yes, that would make him scum. Based on yhe facts out there tho this is not what happened.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

So by your logic the referee who hauled down Yakupov and injured him is scum as well right?

Exactly. Assuming that the official ended Yakupov's career. The official showed a lack of remorse. Blamed the media and Oilers for the incident. Blamed it on a concussion, while going hiking and playing golf immediately after the event while "not being able to recall" the incident when asked...But seeing as that isn't the case. I guess, no my logic does not seem to suggest that the ref was scum.

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

Scum eh? That seems like a stretch. He went his whole career incident free untill these. You even agreed this whole last page that it was most likely due to a concussion he suffered. He obviously was not in a sound state of mind. That dosen't make him scum.

If he did it because he was not in a sound state of mind, then he should have been remorseful instead of blaming the media and refs. He very possibly ended the career of a veteran official and blamed the refs and media for his suspension. That makes him scum in my book.

Let's say you are driving and some kid on a bike swerves from the sidewalk to the road. You hit him, completely accidentally and at no fault of your own. But if your first thought is to text your friends about the big scratch on your car instead of the child being lifted to the hospital, you are scum.

Again, that's assuming that Wideman did not intentionally just mean to push the ref out of his way. Big dumb hockey player doing something stupid in fit of rage isn't exactly surprising, except that it was an official this time. If the linesman had a Nashville jersey on, not a single person is calling this an "accident."

No one defended Chris Simon when he two-handed Hollweg, yet he had just very likely suffered a similar degree of brain injury.

If he was not wearing a Flaming C during the incident, this thread would be entirely different.

[powderjunkie]

^

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

You have no idea how Wideman feels, you're inferring an awful lot form a cherry-picked text. It's a typical legal thing...you don't publicly apologize even if you want to. You're also forgetting that he apologized on the ice.

Not sure why I'm even bothering a further response, but being annoyed at the situation and remorseful are not mutally exclusive.