1. Walkom's job is to defend the officials, what the **** else would he say? Taking his word as gospel is like taking Bin Laden's word that infidels are evil, it's an extremely biased opinion.
2. Clearly you've never had a concussion, because it can cause you to react in that manner.
3. Those texts weren't about the incident, they were about the refs threating to no call games to force a maximum suspension and the media vilifying him. Plus they were to a teammate, not for public consumption. Without context, you really have no god damn clue.
4. The only person that knows 100% for sure is Wideman himself. Even if it was on purpose and a mistake, he would have to be downright stupid to admit it publicly as it would literally cost him millions of dollars as their is a lawsuit.
This is how I look at things, if you were doing your job for over a decade and hurt someone in a situation where doctors are on your side with a medical explanation, I would give you the benefit of the doubt too. And I certainly wouldn't say you should never work again in that industry.
Regarding each point.
1. Walkom's testimony states the obvious, I mean it's on video, it's as clear as day. I mean if anything his statement was generous to Wideman.
2. Your point is ridiculous, concussions have different effects on people, but most are pretty obvious, watch videos of players getting concussed, I've never seen one lash out and run someone over after sustaining one. So I guess all those players who never reacted like Wideman, must never have had a concussion either, by your logic.
3. Irrelevant if they were to a teammate, it gives a glimpse into his state of mind. If they were in fact made under a different context, then I do agree with you there, of course context matters.
4. If he had admitted he messed up, he may have avoided a lawsuit, and certainly his reputation wouldn't have taken such a beating, people in general can accept when someone messes up, if they are sincere about admitting their error. But when a person acts the way Wideman did, showing zero concern for Henderson, well it leaves people with a bad impression.
So basically because a doctor said that Wideman could possibly act this way after a concussion, we just throw out all the evidence that points towards Wideman's guilt. We ignore the fact that he skated no problem at all straight line, to crosscheck a linesman into the boards, not wobbly one bit. We ignore that he himself said it was just his neck or shoulder that bothered him, that he did not have a concussion, we ignore that no concussion protocol was followed after the incident, because well, there were no concussion signs and as Wideman said himself, it was his neck that bothered him.
Only after the game did the team come out and say he had a concussion. The refs are biased, sure. You think the team isn't ? Difference between the two stories is one makes sense, the other doesn't.
As I said in my last post, only Wideman knows his intent, so we agree on that, but clearly he ran over the linesman in a violent way, and showed zero concern for him. He hit him intentionally, only his intent in regards to whether he meant to hurt him or not is in question, at least that's how I see it.
