RobK

Judge specifically states Montour’s innocence… so in reality Montour did no cheat but was cheated of the opportunity to compete. 1. “While I am troubled by the impact of the facts as found on the innocent and highly successful Montour Hockey Team, the law compels me to find that Montour failed to meet the prerequisites required to issue a preliminary injunction.”

The other Freshman goalie went 7-3. PIHL approved Montour roster not once but twice during the season. Part of Judges ruling about the injunction; ”1. While I am troubled by the impact of the facts as found on the innocent and highly successful Montour Hockey Team, the law compels me to find that Montour failed to meet the prerequisites required to issue a preliminary injunction. Montour did nothing wrong and would have succeeded if there was more time to challenge the PIHL’s ruling. Put an * next to whomever wins the Class A Cup.

The other goalie was 7-3. Roster was approved not once but twice by the PIHL. Part of Judges ruling “1. While I am troubled by the impact of the facts as found on the innocent and highly successful Montour Hockey Team, the law compels me to find that Montour failed to meet the prerequisites required to issue a preliminary injunction.” Montour loss the injunction but was innocent of any wrongdoing! Put an * by whomever wins the cup.