Very possible. But, we will never know when both sides go completely silent, and the side that could reveal the extent of what was done refuses to do so. That's exactly what is being argued here, and I am open to hearing everything. My questions have been more tied to the idea that most cheating scandals have a conclusion with details of what went down. This is not one of those, and that is a juxtaposition to what is typically done.
One other theory that could be made is with regard to what sort of physical test was being done? Here's a dumb thought - Chayka seemed to be the type that was big into what are you putting into your body, how your body is performing, etc. - correct? What if they were taking a heart rate monitor test after practices, games, and at rest? That is clearly a test, and I am
not suggesting that this gives them a pass. But I also think that the NHL should be aware of what information people are gathering to make decisions on players, and how that impacts things.
I would envision that heart rate tests are now far more commonplace in sports (possibly as a result of analytics in high aerobic activity sports like hockey, basketball, or soccer).
Your heart rate increasing is a byproduct of the sport you play, so the physical test is not a direct result of a test that our scouts gave the players, like a bench press test in the moment. In theory, we never put the player through a physical test because the game taking place was the actual physical test, but data was still collected on the player and the means in which we are using the data should be noted. So, they are comparing the heart rate after games, etc. to see who is capable of managing a certain load of work, what types of recovery the player has, or other items that heart rate may be correlated to. I do think that if the NHL doesn't also expand its understanding of what analytics are being used to evaluate the fitness of a player, it also leaves them open to something like this. A heart rate test could seem so innocuous that it slips through, but lends creedence to the idea of what Bettman stated as a method of "gross incompetence," moreso than some sort of planned methodology.
Bear in mind, the
Craig Cunningham, Jay Bouwmeester, and Rich Peverley's of the hockey world have happened. If you are going to invest in a draft pick, if there is a way to formulate the risk of someone having a cardiac episode, wouldn't you want that information, if for nothing else but saving the life of someone in the future or having them be aware of an issue? Again, I am not questioning the penalty at this point, because it is clear that the NHL considers this a test that can't be performed. But it would be nice to hear the underlying context of what was being done. I am not trying to justify what was done, but there is context that should be understood as to what testing took place.
