I think our understanding is that Chayka had mentioned an interview, which was originally denied, until it was mentioned that this was not hockey-related.
He was allowed to interview, and we find out that the job is related to hockey, but he would have oversight over several teams, which include EPL, and likely several other sports.
Have we heard either way that whomever interviewed him has now basically dropped him from contention? If you are getting interviewed while a separate, concurrent investigation is going on, doesn't that also indicate that the team interviewing him also didn't see anything wrong with that activity?
There are multiple items in this that don't add up:
1. Why was someone getting a separate interview while also being investigated for cheating? If Chayka was preaching how to cheat, then this is a huge red flag. In my mind, this suggests that there was no top down message with the intention of cheating.
2. Would this also have gone on with regard to other leagues? Is the CHL the only one that was affected? Again, if the instruction from the tip was that all prospects get evaluated the same way, then wouldn't multiple stories from other leagues also exist?
3. If this was punishment for exposing a way to create a loophole, ok -I am fine with getting pubished on that front. But, I would also expect some sort of change to a rule so that the loophole is closed.
That's where I was asking about any further support with Stathletes - does Chayka have a database of information, and those powers between being a GM and involved with Stathletes has their lines blurred, especially if somehow privy to information that other teams may not have similar access to?
