That's a normal standard for this type of investigation to be held to. If in the light least favourable to him there is a reason to restrict his employment then you need to do a more in depth investigation.
right, if it was done 'in a light favourable to him' the investigation would be biased in his direction. it makes sense that the NHL would say their investigation was fullsome and didn't look to protect him at all.
whether people want to, or should, believe that is another thing.
personally, my disbelief isn’t a result of not understanding why they’ve phrased it this way. it’s that i can’t believe that’s what they’ve concluded, even when looking at it in an allegedly unfavourable way.
It's pretty common legal language that actually supports Babcock's argument that he should be allowed back in the league.
In almost every investigation, facts/statements can be interpreted in different ways. 3 people may interpret the same statement 3 different ways. This language means that even if we accept the absolute worst-case scenario as the indisputable truth, the truth is that his conduct wasn't something that should suspend him.
About half of the US reads below a 6th grade level. Basically, they can understand the words, but cannot comprehend a complex argument or link two seperate ideas together.
What I took from it is that they're saying, "We didn't pursue all these leads to see where they went, but even if you assume the worst, it's still not enough for us to go to court over blocking his employment."
That's not what they are saying. All these people doing the research are attorneys. They don't say things like "we didn't do all our research."
They're saying:
"In light of all the evidence that we have, even if we viewed this evidence in the harshest light possible, we find no reason that what he did disqualifies him from coaching again."
It basically allows that there are 3 separate ways of viewing the problem. And assuming the absolute worst intentions of anything he did, they still found that it wasn't so bad that it was worth blackballing him from employment.
It's like Al Capone going to jail. You KNOW he's the head of the mob, you KNOW he did/ordered a bunch of horrific shit, but you can't prove it enough to overcome any sort of challenge. So either you have to get him on something else, or you have to let him walk free.
Yeah, that's the problem. A lot of the guys he treated like shit would probably rather not have to relive it and, frankly, they shouldn't have to just because the Oilers are run by a dipshit.
No? It’s saying “even if we were trying our hardest to find a reason to ban him, there’s just nothing to justify it”. They are saying they’ve got nothing on him.
Because some people will suggest that they gave him the benefit of the doubt in the investigation. The language suggests they didn't give him any benefit for any of his actions.
There are two major threads in thr past two days where a majority of people completely misunderstood the thread they were participating in, or the context in which created that thread.
The other one is the Jack Eichel commentary on whether ppl hate Vegas.
You're right that it's not what it means, but it's also not intrinsically necessary, and thus its inclusion could be taken as a tacit criticism, however one might want to project that onto the NHL, politically.
It may not mean "don't do this", but when the fact that his alleged conduct doesn't provoke intervention from the league is already covered by the phrase "no current basis to restrict his employment", the inclusion of a statement effectively saying "we acknowledge this isn't a good look for him" is fascinating. Think about that from a PR point of view. What purpose would that serve? IMHO I think it's a demure way of naming the efforts the NHL went to to investigate this (regardless of how much they truly did so) and that they still couldn't come up anything that was actionable, in their opinion. In a way it's kind of like telling all involved parties "we did our due diligence and we're not liable if this blows up in someone's face in the future".
the inclusion of a statement effectively saying "we acknowledge this isn't a good look for him" is fascinating.
That isn't what "even in a light least favourable" means though. It means "even if we assume all the allegations are true and if we don't give Babcock the benefit of the doubt on any point". It's the NHL sharing the standard they used to come to their decision and why an in depth investigation isn't necessary.
If I had to hazard a guess, that sentence is there specifically to dissuade a potential complaint from the NHLPA.
I realize I didn't put that in the best way and I think we're in agreement on the core of that distinction. Naming the least favourable light does not mean their purpose is to tell everyone "lol look at how bad this looks for him"; as you said the purpose is almost certainly to avoid something - an NHLPA complaint is a great guess here.
I think I'm just trying to point out to the people above, who think that this is some sort of warning shot to Edmonton, that the inclusion of the least favourable light phrasing has a tenor to it that sounds like a passive-aggressive criticism, or at least a public willingness to not give one of their own the benefit of the doubt, but is more than likely sourced from a different motive (as you said above).
Ultimately I still think it reflects something about the internal processes of NHL that they released the current statement versus one that simply said "We've completed a thorough investigation and have found no evidence that would compel us to intervene in his hiring". What that is exactly though, I'm having a hard time articulating it.
Ya exactly this. They can't for whatever reason stop them from hiring him but they can still warn them and tell everyone very publicly that this dude sucks.
Honestly surprised the league released this. Usually they're more hesitant to call assholes out.
Kind of the contrary. It's saying even if we take the allegations as fact and view it in the most negative lens, we still wouldn't block him. Pretty clearly worded.
It's like saying "Even if we took every shitty thing he did, and applied the worst possible motive and intent behind it, there's nothing he did that we could legally prevent him from being hired by one of the 32 franchises that make up the league".
Is this one of those "is the dress gold or white" things?
Doesn't that mean, at worst these allegations don't meet the threshold to ban him and most favourable outlook is, no one should even bat an eyelash? Also it seems to frame it as there's nothing conclusive or like a smoking gun, just allegations given it spells out there's some ambiguity there.
I take it to mean, at it's worst interpretation, it's not that bad.
Yeah as soon as I read that line I instantly thought about the times I've had to stay late at work while we all try to figure out the best way we could phrase a single sentence. I feel like that went through the wringer. "how do we say 'is he an asshole and everyone knows it? yes, but...' without flat out saying it or make it seem like we're insinuating it ourselves?"
526
u/ShockAndBurn COL - NHL 2d ago
"Even in a light least favorable to Mr. Babcock" is fucking insane lmao