BUX7PHX
Registered User
- Jul 7, 2011
- 5,581
- 1,350
It’s a fairly weak argument. That being said it’s also a fairly obvious one. Has NHL ensured there was a Chinese wall in place? If no, then what measures have they taken to ensure this isn’t occurring. Do NHl teams have access to their minor league data? That’s an issue.
This is probably also why the league was staying out of the conversation.
Changes and updates to rules should be inevitable. Many rules that we consider are within the scope of the game, but this exposes a question of who has access to what data? I didn't necessarily think of the argument for individuals who have stakes in CHL teams. In a way, that would be very similar to the idea that Stathletes or some other party has the information and because of the relationship dynamic, an owner could get that information.
Bottom line:
1. Our strength coach is an idiot if he has been around this long and did what was done.
2. The statements still don't exonerate Chayka. This happened under his watch, and he should be aware of going over what is and is not appropriate, much the same way that every year or so, someone needs to audit language of rules to ensure no gray areas exist. But it does at least lend credence to the idea that this wasn't some sort of plotted scheme from the top.
3. I agree that if this affects 2020 draft eligibles, then what does taking away a 2021 puck do? A little frustrated by that.
4. Also a little surprised that many believed the punishment was not going to be as much as it wound up being from Meruelo and others inside of the organization. Kind of makes you wonder if not just presenting info on which NHL owners have stakes in lower companies - do any scouts have personal relationships with certain teams, and every now and again, a test is looked the other way? Not saying this always happens. But could the opposite case be made, that at some point, a physical test did not have the whistle blown on them?
Ultimately, the punishment is the punishment, but the reason why the NHL isn't talking is because they don't want to open up the can of worms that is who has relationships as minority owners and could that individual be getting data in that manner? If we are talking heights and weights here, then that's a pretty bold punishment, although it definitely demands no physical testing. But if a GM has a stake in an OHL team, and he gets sent a monthly report on player height and weight, there really isn't that much of a difference between the two, in terms of data and its exchange.
Glad at least some information was made public.