The NDA's decision reinforces my view that the next CBA should provide greater clarity to the disciplinary process. These cases require an element of "judgment," where a presumably independent expert weighs the evidence, but lodging responsibility for the first level of appeal in the commish is wacko. Particularly when that person heads up the organization that employs the individuals who populate DOPES.
The NHLPA also cites Parros' testimony that the day before the DPS hearing on this incident he was at an unrelated meeting at which the Commissioner said something to the effect: "You're going to do the right thing or Do the right thing."
Sounds like strong guidance from your boss. What kind of organization tolerates that?
Also, if the Commish continues to be involved in this process, the NHLPA's position on the next CBA should require that he makes up any contributions that the Emergency Assistance Fund loses when his decisions on suspension appeals are reduced. Clearly he's not doing his job if he can't get it right, so he should pay just like a player has to.