coyotecanuck replied about the circumstantial evidence...but I would like to add..You've watched Alex play and seen that he took less than market and never complained, how he conducts himself in front of the cameras usually. Now do you actually think that this guy would voluntarily lie on national TV about this? You could tell he was agitated when he was talking. It probably wasn't the best idea to talk while still angry but he did. Do you honestly think a character like Alex could or would even do that? What's in it for him? A lot of misery.
And to expand on the circumstantial evidence. There is video of Auger coming up and talking to him before the game, and they don't look like they're sharing a Francophone joke. Then during the game Burrows gets called for two phantom penalties one interference and one diving. This was the first diving penalty of the year and something like the second in his entire NHL career. You'd think he's have more of a record if he was as bad as Ron Mclean let on. Even Lu after the game supported Alex and called the penalties bogus.
From the Predators game January 11, 2010,
Diving (call initially no one knew what the penalty was):
Then the Interference:
All this in a close game, and still Alex scores two goals, but the penalties cost us and we lost the game.
I don't see how anyone could doubt what happened.
Key word here: "circumstantial".
Hey I agree with everybody; Auger was no good as a ref. But for Burrows to accuse an NHL official of conduct that would get him fired immediately if it could be proven and for him to have no proof other than the two talked to each other is simply asking for trouble.