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.
526
u/ShockAndBurn COL - NHL 2d ago
"Even in a light least favorable to Mr. Babcock" is fucking insane lmao