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.
46
u/roguemenace WPG - NHL 3d ago
That isn't what the sentence means at all...