Do you not understand legal loopholes?
Sure I do. If there is a loop hole, then F'n close it. If it's a loophole, MLB can get the legal team together and prove that it's badly worded and opens a loophole and if they can prove that, they can have the document amended. But someone originally put that wording in their to protect the evidence and the innocent. Until then, we can only have "the opinion" that it's a loophole. An opinion that I may or may not at the moment share.
Because that's what we have here, even Braun's attorney admits as much in the bolded part of his statement when he talked about "plain meaning of words" in the policy.
I would like to know exactly what words in the document he is talking about are, and after that listen to why the words are incorrect.
I understand you happen to be a very literal guy who is only interested in black & white laws/policy and possess no critical thought.
The bold is just you PMSing again throwing out insults. I have opinions that may or may not be far from yours. But I am literal because "reading between the lines" requires assumptions. And assumptions increase error. I'm cautious so that I don't unjustly accuse an innocent person, even if I believe they are guilty.
Braun's lawyer is essentially admitting he beat a loophole and exploited the wording in the policy to get his client off. Do you at least admit that?
I don't admit that. I admit that it is VERY, VERY, VERY POSSIBLE, and that I would not at all be surprised by it. I'm cynical/skeptical of players and performance enhancing drugs. Players, especially baseball, have made me that way.
And if you do, do you actually accept that, and celebrate it as successful due process?
If it's proven that to be the case, then I accept that due process NEEDS TO BE AMENDED. That's much different than accepting it as "due process has occurred". If the process does not get amended, you have to question if it's really a loophole. In this case, I would expect MLB to prove that the process needs to be amended and to even try and get the Arbitrators decision reversed. I've said that a couple of times already. I sure would hope that something is done to prevent this from happening again.
Because reasonable people see through legal technicalities and call bullshit when they see it. But based on your previous OJ post, you seem like one of these people who cling to the law, no matter what, even when the law is wrong.
Reasonable people realize that they are fallible and don't state things as fact until they are sure it is fact. Waiting for more information is never a bad thing. And letting the process play out can get you the most accurate info. If MLB does take this further, and I expect them to, and believe they should, we will hear from the experts in an official/legal capacity on why the sample should still be used as evidence, and why the original document needs to be amended. We are likely to see stuff similar to what you posted on the science of urine samples/testing and the seals that are used during this, if MLB takes things to the next step. And I would not be surprised if the ruling is overturned.
Formulate an original thought, man. See the obvious here.
I formulate original thoughts, or thoughts based on info I get. I'm just cautious about accusing someone. I'll let the process play out.
You did throw a PMS shot in their, but at least you asked me good questions in this post. You may not agree with my answers, but at least they were good question.
