Why did I get the impression, sir, and I don't imagine that I'm alone here, that somehow in the comments that you made—and we can go back to the testimony to be clear. I think I'll want to do that; I'll go back to the blues and your comments—I got the very distinct sense that you were challenging the credibility of arbitrators, that their judgments would be biased because they were appointed? I understand the principle of potential for bias. That's why I ask you the question.
Do you have a specific reference where you have seen, or that has been established, that because an arbitrator was appointed, that has somehow biased their judgment?