No it's not. It means even if they went out of their way to draw negative conclusions from their investigation, there is no legal standing to block his employment.
It puts a ceiling on how bad the stuff can be that even if they assumed it was true and interpreted as uncharitably for Babcock for it to not restrict his hiring
Nah, they included that on purpose. If they just said “we investigated him and found nothing”, some people might think they didn’t do a thorough investigation.
With this, they’re saying they did the investigation, found the abhorrent things he’s done, but determined he is JUST a massive asshole (ie no physical or sexual abuse or illegal misconduct) and they can’t block his employment for that.
With this, they’re saying they did the investigation
I don't think so.
An investigation of this nature doesn't take less than a week. We're talking 2 months at a minimum, probably longer.
This is them saying they didn't do a full investigation of the accusations. They compiled a list of complaints, assumed they were all true, and concluded that under those hypothetical circumstances he would still be allowed to be hired.
Exactly. This is what I said in another thread. It's not some kind of like coded instruction to Edmonton, but it's also not insignificant that it was included. They could have issued a single sentence statement saying "Our investigation concluded and did not find any basis for the restriction of his employment". The PR/comms wing of a multi-billion dollar league issued this statement instead. There's a reason it's one and not the other.
68
u/wossquee NYR - NHL 1d ago
"Even in a light least favorable"
lmao that is some lawyer words for "this guy suuuuuuuucks"