Again, he told that story to the expert who was tasked with diagnosing him with or without a concussion. If you don't think Wideman was playing up his symptoms then you are lot more trusting of people than I ever would be.
I'm not commenting on the actual incident. Whether it was an accident, impulse control issues due to a concussion, a stupid hockey player exhibiting anger management issues, or an Oilers fan who developed mind control, I think that's beside my point. I think Wideman was dishonest in his interview with the expert.
No, I'm talking about physiology and how memories are actually stored. Concussions distort information, especially in the moments directly after the concussion. Have you ever seen a questionnaire for medics evaluating a concussion? You can be conscious and seem alert, yet are not aware of the year or the city you are in. Safe to say that whatever testimony Wideman gives will be distorted at best. Like the witness that doesn't have their glasses on at the time, but swears they saw something 100%, no doubt. Memory is never ever 100%. Don't beat up on Wideman for not knowing which story to go with. He likely never knew and was being advised on what to do.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
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.
OK...but, why? What was his motive?
The Following User Says Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
No, I'm talking about physiology and how memories are actually stored. Concussions distort information, especially in the moments directly after the concussion.
Sorry Cali Panthers Fan, are you aware the interview with the expert was taken days after the concussion?
Immediately after the collision: Wideman is aware, apologizing to the linesman. Is not required to undergo further concussion testing (maybe blame the Flames medical on this one).
Shortly after the incident: Wideman is answering media questions. Responds that it was just an accident. Was looking down, didn't see until last second.
Four days after the incident during a 35 minute FaceTime interview with the expert who will diagnosis him with a concussion: Vaguely remembers the incident, but can't piece together what happened.
A couple days later at the hearing: Responds that it was just an accident. Was looking down, didn't see until last second.
A lot like when I use to play hooky from school by saying I was sick, it wasn't a coincidence I only coughed when my mom was around me.
Last edited by Oling_Roachinen; 02-17-2016 at 08:22 PM.
This is my first post on CP so I think I'd better introduce myself as a huge Flames fan because I sense a lot of people might disagree with what I am about to post and accuse me of being a troll.
I've watched the now infamous video of the incident many times as I am sure everyone has. What I see is after Wideman gets up from the hit and straightens up, he takes 4, count them 4 purposeful strides towards the bench in a direct line. That is to say, he doesn't weave back and forth but skates directly to the door of the bench knowing he needs to change. Also, I totally disagree with anyone that says that he took a little "stutter step" in an effort to avoid the linesman. I see that "stutter step" as him planting his outside leg in an effort to get a better hit in to the unsuspecting official, and hit him he does, ON PURPOSE !
I also have to say I agree 100% with Bettmans findings released today. There was no way that Gary could or should have allowed Wideman to play the "concussion card" as it would have set a dangerous precedent going forward for future disciplinary hearings.
The only thing I don't like about the suspension is the fact that with Wideman in the lineup the Flames are more likely to lose more games, so in that respect I wish he would return sooner as I don't see the Flames making it to the post season and the lower we drop in the standings the higher we pick in the 2016 entry draft.
I'm hoping I have seen Wideman's last game as a Flame but don't know if he will be very easily traded now given that any team that acquires him will only have around twenty games remaining in their regular season prior to playoffs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teroy
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.
I can't believe I'm doing this. This dead horse is pretty much an Ikea hot dog by this point. But even if you hate the Flames with every ounce of your being and Wideman kicked your dog once, I can't see how you can honestly look at this and say that he 100% targeted the ref and then cross checked him. Just my silly opinion of course, but its absurd.
As has been argued based on the Weber incident, players instinctively raise their arms to protect themselves. Widemans hands are together on his stick. Not really a true cross check.
Watch his feet. Yes, watch them. A plant to deliver a blow? Please. It looks like a stutter step to avoid something that kind of surprised him.
I think you can be woozy without being concussed, you can also have your head up and not really be paying attention to what is in front of you. Dizzy? Eyes closed? Ever smacked your nose on something? I can't see a damn thing after I do that.
Also, watch his head. It doesn't move from the point he gets up and skates towards the bench to the point he enters the bench. If he was targeting the ref, I would think his head would hone in like a targeting system.
Do I think he could kinda see the ref and probably saw him at one point? Yes. But I also think that he realized they were skating in opposite directions and probably didn't expect the ref to be there when he arrived, hence the surprise.
Is everything I've stated completely speculative? Yup. But its more probable than Dennis Wideman the vengeful targeting a guy that calls offsides and icings with a vicious crosscheck.
I do think he deserves some sort of punishment. That just can't happen. Its kind of like a high sticking penalty. 95% of the time you don't mean to do it, but you have to be responsible for your actions, so off you go. But 20 games and 600K for intent? That stinks.
I'm done.
Last edited by sa226; 02-17-2016 at 08:22 PM.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to sa226 For This Useful Post:
I don't think that not looking back shows no remorse. In both the Weber and Muzzin cases they didn't look back at all.
In my opinion there was 3 parts. Each, when taken by itself, doesn't seem to warrant such severe a suspension but together, can be, given the timeline.
First, he followed through a bit more than a reactionary putting the hands up. Not intent to injury or premeditated that he's looking to clock a ref or get some aggression out...but still, just a hint of something more then putting hands up to defend himself. Subtle, but there.
Second, not looking back, as mentioned, or helping the ref up, as if it was a mistake or half mistake, even if a too little too late admission of responsibility.
Three, texting a teammate days later not really taking any responsibility and not happy with the fact he's facing this.
But, put them altogether and here we are. If one or more of the above things doesn't happen, my guess is 10 games or less and Wideman's back next week at latest.
But a debatable follow through, THEN no immediately outward appearance of regret, THEN texting a teammate many days later showing no regret, and, passive aggressively intimating that the process he's going through with the league is a sham, means he gets zero benefit of the doubt when all combined.
Last edited by browna; 02-17-2016 at 08:26 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to browna For This Useful Post:
Reading the cross-examinations, (and yes realizing they were cherry picked excerpts from transcript), the NHL/Bettman did a pretty good job of destroying any credibility the concussion experts had to do with Wideman.
Yeah I agree with this assessment. The most prominent expert is only as good as the factual foundation upon which they base their opinion.
As a general principle, not accounting for the possibility of fabrication in a self-report from an interview subject is very harmful to an expert's conclusions.
Also, not obtaining foundation evidence from the people who actually dealt with and interviewed a patient in the immediate moments after the incident can be extremely harmful to an experts's conclusions:
Quote:
Neither the NHLPA nor its expert witnesses presented (or even sought) any corroboration for the contention that Mr. Wideman's seemingly intentional actions were in fact the product of a "confused" state. As noted above, Drs. Comper and Kutcher both simply took what Mr. Wideman told them at face value. They could have, but did not, seek to corroborate his statements by speaking with the Club's medical trainer, who was not consulted by either Dr. Comper or Dr. Kutcher or asked by the NHLPA to testify at the hearing about Mr. Wideman's supposed "confusional state. " '
Add to that the contents of footnote 8 - Wideman testified that he intentionally misled the public about his symptoms because someone told him to.
Quote:
I note that Mr. Wideman gave a post-game interview in which he essentially denied having been "woozy. " Mr. Wideman testified at the hearing that he had been instructed to give a misleading answer if asked about his condition and that he followed that instruction.
If Wideman intentionally gave a misleading public statement regarding his symptoms then there is serious cause to not just accept at face value the truthfulness of his privately self-reported symptoms to two experts hired to help him in a disciplinary hearing.
I asked in the other thread how can Bettman find the original decision is based on "clear and convincing" evidence when a concussion was conceded...and this is pretty much exactly how. He finds Wideman to be dishonest about his self-reported symptoms (based on actual testimony from Wideman that he was previously dishonest about his symptoms) and then gets the experts to agree that he could have a concussion and also not have the symptoms they relied upon to form their conclusions.
Then he rejects the expert conclusions and the testimony of Wideman and he is left with the video and no evidence from which to conclude Wideman was actually affected by the concussion it is conceded he suffered at the moment of the hit on the official.
So, the question now for me will be whether the next appeal will include additional evidence (which is still somewhat strangely permitted) and how that additional evidence may impact on the NDA's standard of review. CBA Section 18.13(c):
Quote:
The NDA shall hold an in-person hearing and shall determine whether the final decision of the League regarding whether the Player's conduct violated the League Playing Rules and whether the length of the suspension imposed were supported by substantial evidence. The NDA shall issue an opinion and award as soon as practicable. The NDA shall have the authority to consider any evidence relating to the incident even if such evidence was not available at the time of the initial Supplementary Discipline for On-Ice Conduct decision or at the time of the Commissioner's decision in connection with the appeal. The NDA shall have full remedial authority in respect of the matter should he/she determine that the Commissioner's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. The NDA's decision shall be final and binding in all respects and not subject to review.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MBates For This Useful Post:
Waiting a week for the decision and feeling the need to include the text message is the problem here...he can decide whatever the #### he wants but to accuse someone of not being sincere and trying to embarrass a player? Who the #### does this guy think he is? The game is about the PLAYERS, not Gary and certainly not the refs.
I can't even imagine how pissed the players are about his statement and waiting a week to deliver it...they negotiated 3rd party arbitration and Gary drags his feet so its basically usesless. Wonder why there are been such bad relations between the league and its players look no further.
The transcript of the hearing was received at the League office on
February 16, 2016.
Stupid question, but who would have been responsibly for the transcripts?
For all the hate about how long it took to get this out, they couldn't really release this without referencing the official transcripts. Which they only got yesterday? If they got the transcripts yesterday, releasing it today after putting in the footnotes and transcript pages seems reasonable.
No, but to uncover bias invalidates an objective analysis of the imperial evidence, as per academic, philosophical and scientific standards.
One can have a bias opinion. It would just be more questionable than an objective one.
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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
Sorry Cali Panthers Fan, are you aware the interview with the expert was taken days after the concussion?
Immediately after the collision: Wideman is aware, apologizing to the linesman. Is not required to undergo further concussion testing (maybe blame the Flames medical on this one).
Shortly after the incident: Wideman is answering media questions. Responds that it was just an accident. Was looking down, didn't see until last second.
Four days after the incident during a 35 minute FaceTime interview with the expert who will diagnosis him with a concussion: Vaguely remembers the incident, but can't piece together what happened.
A couple days later at the hearing: Responds that it was just an accident. Was looking down, didn't see until last second.
These 'stories' are not very different nor are they damning. It actually seems plausible, if not probable to me. If he stuck to the exact same talking point over and over and over people would be up in arms about him being coached/directed to say it and not being truthful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by browna
In my opinion there was 3 parts. Each, when taken by itself, doesn't seem to warrant such severe a suspension but together, can be, given the timeline.
First, he followed through a bit more than a reactionary putting the hands up. Not intent to injury or premeditated that he's looking to clock a ref or get some aggression out...but still, just a hint of something more then putting hands up to defend himself. Subtle, but there.
Second, not looking back, as mentioned, or helping the ref up, as if it was a mistake or half mistake, even if a too little too late admission of responsibility.
Three, texting a teammate days later not really taking any responsibility and not happy with the fact he's facing this.
Point 1 is valid, the other 2 are about 99% irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teroy
He was angry and lashed out like a child.
OK, and then he just sits down like nothing signifcant happened, IMO appearing to be some combination of dazed, wincing/in pain and annoyed. We saw a child tantrum on the ice just a few days ago from Kadri. If Wideman was "angry and lashing out", would you not expect to see some other indication in his body language or facial expressions?
I still don't get how Gary thinks its a good idea to embarrass a player...just uphold the decision if you feel its right. I am certain players have said worse about Gary and the refs via text message.
To release this text in his smug and slimy way, why?
Mind expanding on this for me? I can't reconcile those two versions of the incident.
The two versions I'm hearing from you (please feel free to correct):
1. He was keeled over and looked up and was surprised to see him and they just kind of collided (paraphrasing his immediate post-game) - which doesn't appear fully accurate based on the poor video we have, in terms of being 'keeled over' and 'looking up' (if you take this to mean with his entire head, not just his eyes) just before impact, however I think the sentiment of what he is saying is that he was surprised to see him and just reacted. There are several places he could have been looking: wincing/watery eyes, looking down, looking at the play that was now coming towards him, or looking directly at Henderson's back and plotting to accidentally-on-purpose rock him. I'll put my money on any of the former rather than the last possibility, which would support the 'looked up and we collided' statement.
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). If you accept the first premise that "he looked up and they just collided" then we are talking about 1-3 seconds of action. As his been discussed, nobody in the building thought this was any more of a deal than any other collision throughout the game. Would you expect him, or any player for that matter to have a crystal clear recollection of every incident each game? I would expect a vague remembrance, likely largely influenced by seeing it on video in the days to come.
Your point seems to be that he is a liar and guilty because statement one and statement two are not identical. I would say they match up and support each other pretty well.
An anecdotal example: early today (ie. 6 hours ago) I slipped an fell on a super icy uphill sidewalk on my way home from the grocery store. I knew it was super slippery and was being careful and paying full attention, but still slipped and fell. I have a pretty vivid recollection of what happened, but it's still hard to make a totally cohesive and accurate statement. I know my right knee got slightly tweaked because I can still feel it a bit, but I can't give many other details with full confidence. Was it my right or left foot that slipped first? I'm pretty sure it was my right hand that hit the ground...but there is doubt in my mind now thinking about it. I must have gotten up and proceeded super carefully without any more trouble through that horribly slippery section, but I don't really remember that after being taken aback by the fall. Ask me tomorrow, next week or next month what happened, and I could very well think I was at a different intersection or walking downhill, not up.
And as I said, I was paying full attention and aware of my slippery situation; it seems likely that Wideman wasn't 100% aware or focused, concussed or not.
OK, and then he just sits down like nothing signifcant happened, IMO appearing to be some combination of dazed, wincing/in pain and annoyed. We saw a child tantrum on the ice just a few days ago from Kadri. If Wideman was "angry and lashing out", would you not expect to see some other indication in his body language or facial expressions?
No, what he is saying is Wideman made a split second bad decision. It was not premeditated, he did not intend to do it, it happened. This happens to people all the time. As for his reactions on the bench it looks more to me like a guy who is realizing what he just did and is in shock by it. It was an emotional reaction that was not controlled by the player. If you want to argue Wideman should not be suspended for that have at it.
I still don't get how Gary thinks its a good idea to embarrass a player...just uphold the decision if you feel its right.
He deserved to be embarrassed and people trying to justify it should be embarrassed too.
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.
