Why Dennis Wideman seems destined to lose his final appeal before a neutral arbitrator

Attractive 20-game suspension to neutral referee Dennis Wideman James Oldham Concluded on Friday. Suspended for leveling linesman Don Henderson, Wideman turned Gary Bettman Commissioner ITS first suspension. According To the NHL CBA, Wideman and NHLPA Had the right to appeal the suspension to a neutral arbitrator Bettman and the suspension was more than five games. And That Is Precisely What They did.

Referee powers Oldham

NHL CBA gives wide discretionary powers in Oldham. According to Article 18.13 of the NHL CBA, Oldham has "authority full recovery" and may "consider any evidence relating to the incident" although such evidence was not available at the time of the first appeal to Bettman.

If Oldham concludes that Bettman's decision was not supported by evidence, it can be lowered suspension Wideman or completely vacate. It also has the authority to increase the suspension, but that will not happen.

Also noteworthy is that Oldham's decision is "final and binding" and not subject to revision. If Wideman is dissatisfied with the outcome of the appeal, it could take your case to court. A judge, however, is unlikely to interfere with the arbitrator's decision, unless it was a very serious error. Judges generally differ from the experience of the arbitrators. So whatever the decision of Oldham, this is very likely the end of the road for Wideman and their flesh with the NHL.

Concussions science was based on the appeal of NHLPA

The focus of the appeal of the NHLPA was the science of concussions. The Union argued that the success of Miikka Salomaki in Wideman resulted in a concussion thereby override the mental state of Wideman such that he was unable to form the necessary intent to make contact with deliberate Henderson.

The concept of "intent" is key, since the suspension of Wideman is based on Rule 40.2. This rule states that a player will be suspended for a minimum of 20 games if (1) deliberately attacked an officer and causes an injury, (2) deliberately physical force is applied against an official with the intent to harm, or (3) He did anything else with the intent to injure an official.

The common thread with each of these three factors is the intention. Therefore, before stopping Wideman 20 games, the league had to conclude that Wideman must have intended to make contact with Henderson. Unintentionally, which has no deliberate contact, you need to Rule 40.2.

So the NHLPA argued that Wideman had never deliberately intended to contact, and as a result, the suspension should be left completely aside.

Wideman Faces Uphill Battle In Appeal

Unless there is new and compelling evidence presented by the NHLPA, Wideman is likely to lose his final appeal. The reason lies in the decision to maintain the suspension Bettman.

Bettman agreed with the NHLPA two experts, Dr. Paul Comper and Dr. Jeffrey Kutcher, it was possible Wideman may have suffered from confusion, aggression and fighting behavior immediately after Salomaki coup. That said, Bettman concluded that there was evidence that this was indeed the case and that the experts were speaking in purely theoretical terms:

The conclusions expressed by Dr. Comper and Dr. Kutcher not based on what capacity Mr. Wideman actually was at the time in question, but what their condition might have been.

Thus, for Bettman, experts could not definitively conclude that the trial of Wideman was damaged, but the only one that could have been.

Bettman also emphasized that neither expert "Mr. Wideman diagnosed or treated" after the incident, and only interviewed the Flames defenseman days after the incident. It also stressed the theoretical nature of the conclusions of the experts.

A critical gap in Defense of Wideman

Experts do not speak with the medical trainer flames, which Bettman was a fundamental omission and material:

They could have done it, but not, try to corroborate his statements when talking to the medical trainer of the club, which was not consulted by either Dr. Comper or Dr. Kutcher or asked by the NHLPA to testify at the hearing on the assumption confusion Mr. Wideman state.

This last point highlights a gap of critical importance in arguments of the Union: the evidence was not presented by medical personnel flames Wideman was confused, or otherwise suffered from an altered immediately after the coup mental state. Without this basic fundamental information, the experts were talking only in theoretical terms.

Bettman also said the coach notes about the incident do not support the position that Wideman suffered from a "state of confusion":

Coach's notes provided to Drs. Comper and Kutcher contain nothing to indicate that Mr. Wideman was unclear when he returned to the bench or at any time thereafter. While coach's notes state that Mr. Wideman was "struck in the second period, states considered unbalanced go to the bank [and] cleared in a few minutes." Dr. Kutcher said that Mr. Wideman was not suffering from motor incoordination when he hit Mr. Henderson.

So the expert testimony, which was key to the NHLPA, was in sight of defective Bettman. Having considered decision of Bettman, their conclusion is reasonable and sound. And unless remedied on appeal to Oldham, this defect is likely to be fatal to the case of the NHLPA.

No visible evidence of Altered State

Apart from the expert evidence, Wideman faces other obstacles. Bettman concluded that the evidence suggests that video Wideman was not confused after the coup. Rather, he seemed disoriented and his approach to the bench because even unintentionally signaled for a line change.

The NHLPA reasonably argue that the behavior apparently purposeful Bettman automatic was referred to a veteran of 11 season and Wideman still could have been confused, however, a good absent evidence of altered mental status - can be difficult to provide in any scenario - this argument is a difficult question to ask.

The precedent that affects player Health and Safety

Bettman also invoked reproductive health and safety as another reason not to reduce the suspension. Bettman argued that acceptance of concussion defense would create a precedent difficult to handle for the league that could endanger his players:

... To find a record like this that the player was not responsible for the consequences of their actions set a precedent that could be easily manipulated in the future in a way that would make the game more dangerous for all participants, including Players .

This argument unsafe workplace and can resonate with Oldham. arbitrators of labor law take this issue seriously.

Wideman contradictory evidence

It does not help that there are inconsistencies in the account of what happened to Wideman. After the game, he said he was not dizzy. On appeal, however, he stated that he was instructed to give a misleading answer if asked about their condition. While the latter may be true, contrary statements are a problem for Wideman.

A tough defense to begin

Concussion defense will always be a challenge. While a broken arm can be easily diagnosed, it is obviously much more difficult to make a firm determination to determine the impact of a blow knowledge of the situation and confusion. Throw in other tests that do not clearly support an altered mental state, along with inconsistent evidence Wideman, and what remains is a difficult case for the NHLPA.

Ultimately, in the light of the evidentiary issues facing the NHLPA would be a surprise to see Oldham make the decision to set ambitious and precedent that a concussion can excuse illegal and violent actions otherwise on the ice. Before issuing a decision of that magnitude, Oldham will have to be sure that such a decision is clearly supported by the evidence.

And new and convincing evidence, that does not seem to be the case.

Related eXtra/News news News Today Sport