no, and that's not what i'm suggesting. what i'm suggesting is that any reasonable attempt to validate a serious, impactful medical finding would involve seeking a second opinion. seek a second opinion, and at least there is plausible deniability. a third and it's clear the intent was on getting it right. one team physician making a risk diagnosis that just happens to be awfully convenient towards the immediate goals of the franchise? how is this not suspect behavior? It wasn't the Assistant GM all of a sudden saying he didn't like his motion in some video review, this was an actual doctor giving his medical opinion. Talk of it being convenient for the Astros and how it's suspect seems to cast aspersions on him with no evidence. Like I said Andrews can disagree with it, and I'd side with him over the Astros doctor, but if I employed a medical professional for these things and his opinion was that there was a potential issue, you're damn right I'd go back with an amended offer. Even with 2 more medical opinions disagreeing with your team doctor, I don't know that it would change my opinion that much. My guy said there could be an issue, unless they exposed him as an utter quack, that concern is still there. They haven't ruled yet, and they may yet rule against Aiken, but I haven't seen much in terms of evidence of malice on the Astros part when it comes to his amateurism. Luhnow has come across as a smart guy during his FO tenure, I guess I just find it hard to believe that he'd make an Amaro like gaffe like that.