tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post8956332533300206353..comments2024-01-06T02:22:33.000-05:00Comments on Camden Depot: MASN Dispute: Final ArgumentsJon Shepherdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03521809778977098687noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-37055516851259704062015-06-04T21:47:50.482-04:002015-06-04T21:47:50.482-04:00Anonymous - Fair enough, let's look at it your...Anonymous - Fair enough, let's look at it your way. Suppose that vacating an arbitration decision requires clear evidence of misconduct as opposed to a reasonable man standard. In that case, let's look at what actually happened.<br /><br />Would you agree that this case began in July 2014?<br />Would you agree that the court has refused the Nationals claim to force MASN to pay the amounts in question prior to a decision and allowed MASN to post the money on bond?<br />Would you agree that the court refused to throw out the case on grounds that it was unlikely to succeed?<br />Would you agree that the court forced MLB to provide metadata about certain issues?<br />Would you agree that the court has failed to issue a decision in this case for weeks after hearing final testimony?<br />Would you agree that the court absolutely blasted a number of the Nationals' arguments in court while being sympathetic to MASN arguments? Unlike the other questions, this one is debatable. I would argue it's obvious but I suppose others could argue.<br /><br />So, if clear evidence of misconduct is required to vacate the decision and the Justice doesn't think that this occurred then what exactly is going on? Why hasn't MASN lost this case already if at least isn't questionable? Why is this farce continuing? <br /><br />There are only three answers that I can think of that can be used to answer these questions.<br /><br />The first one could be that I simply am unable to explain MASNs legitimate arguments in a reasonable way. If so, then it's hard to argue that I'm biased but rather don't understand what's going on. But then, if you've read my material, you've likely read other material and can gauge whether that's the case.<br /><br />The second one is that for some odd reason the court has decided to allow a case where MASN has no merit to drag on for nearly a year thereby causing 'significant' damage to the Nationals (and to be fair, $10 million isn't pocket change). <br /><br />Or the third one could be that while you understand the burden of proof necessary to reject an arbitration decision, Justice Marks simply does not. I would not want to be the one making this argument.<br /><br />You tell me. Is it reasonable to allow an arbitration case to drag on for so long if one side clearly doesn't have a case as you claim? Far more reasonable to presume that I'm right that Justice Marks considers MASNs argument to have merit based on what's actually happening.<br /><br />But then again, maybe I'm just biased.<br />Matt Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-55280974460553807232015-06-04T11:31:54.194-04:002015-06-04T11:31:54.194-04:00It is more like it indicates bias as opposed to re...It is more like it indicates bias as opposed to reveal. And it may just be a misunderstanding of the process. Stevenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-51858755932336194342015-06-04T11:22:27.538-04:002015-06-04T11:22:27.538-04:00I have read your extensive overview of the recent ...I have read your extensive overview of the recent proceedings and let me gently suggest that you are ever so slightly biased towards MASN and the Orioles. From your piece, I read of no clear evidence of any misconduct on the part of RSDC nor was there anything unusual about the process. Having a judge reject an arbitration decision requires far more substance than this, and the fact that you see otherwise reveals your bias.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com