I'm coming around to that view. But that also has to recognize that the "coaching" that kept AB productive might have been less than optimal for the rest of the team's success.I disagree about Tomlin. I know he is popular whipping boy around here, but my read of that article is Tomlin's ability to get so much out of Ab before the wheels came off shows a strength of his coaching , not a weakness.
I see it both ways, and why i think AB doesn't make the year in NE.I'm coming around to that view. But that also has to recognize that the "coaching" that kept AB productive might have been less than optimal for the rest of the team's success.
“Normal confidentiality” in a settlement like this doesn’t usually involve the accuser doing an interview with the accused’s employer beforehand.If she settles with the normal confidentiality thing, the NFL will be fine as the PR hit will disappear as the sources will dry up.
I'm kinda curious about this myself. The best explanation I've conceived of is that she has evidence that she thinks could motivate the NFL to suspend him, which would make things worse for a guy who sexually assaulted her (if he did what he's accused of, there's no doubt he deserves the sanction) and presumably bolster her efforts to either secure a settlement or win a civil suit.I brought this up in the other thread in response to another poster, but the question is probably better for here;
Do we know why Taylor is doing the interview with the NFL?
So many people are treating it like it’s obvious that she would work with the NFL, just because it’s the NFL. But to the extent that the meeting could affect her civil case, it’s not at all obvious that she would or should do the interview with them. So I’m wondering why.
Absolutely. The fact that Tomlin was able to keep this dude's behavior either, at best, under control or, at worst, hidden from public view for the better part of a decade is a remarkable achievement. I am not a doctor and didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but it sure looks like AB has a personality disorder. Maybe accentuated by a touch of the CTE. Just zero in the way of boundaries, impulse control, or regard for others.I disagree about Tomlin. I know he is popular whipping boy around here, but my read of that article is Tomlin's ability to get so much out of Ab before the wheels came off shows a strength of his coaching , not a weakness.
PREFACE: This is simply my opinion. Clearly no one really knows what went on.Absolutely. The fact that Tomlin was able to keep this dude's behavior either, at best, under control or, at worst, hidden from public view for the better part of a decade is a remarkable achievement.
Well, maybe I should have agreed with the point that Tomlin did a good job managing him (I don't think any coach is changing who this dude is) and getting production out of him until things fell apart.PREFACE: This is simply my opinion. Clearly no one really knows what went on.
Anyway, I just disagree with the fact that that allowing the guy to get away with increasingly crazy behavior is the sign of a great coach. It's the sign of a guy mollifying his star player because he know calling him out would likely cause a blow up. I liken it to parenting. Buying your kid a candy bar because he's starting to act up at the grocery store isn't necessarily good parenting. But it could lead to the kid "behaving" while at Stop and Shop. And then next time he expects it. And so on.
Hiding AB's behavior from the public, in my mind, emboldened AB. And that's left the Steelers eating a $20M cap charge this year, while AB either plays with one of their rivals or is suspended.
Right, and Gordon is most definitely a sympathetic figure at this point. I am rooting like hell for him to stabilize himself to the point where his life post-football is a good one. An AB redemption story seems incredibly unlikely, especially given how his behavior is trending these last few years.well, with Gordon it's simple: he either relapses or he doesn't. We're not worried about lawsuits, we're not worried about disputes with people, we're not worried about violence, and unless you consider drug use in this category, we're not worried about selfish behavior. We're just worried about whether he can manage his stress without falling back on a lifetime of bad habits.
AB's situation brings with it many more dimensions of uncertainty.
Do you think she’s giving up on the possibility of a settlement? I mean, what would AB settle for once confidentiality is off the table?My guess is the optics of it almost compel her to do so. I don't know that I would like it if I were her lawyer but its part of the gauntlet she will have to run if she wants to be successful. The complaint was written with AB in mind and a settlement - ie, here is the damaging complaint we will file if you don't settle. I've used this tactic multiple times. The downside is that if you set a deadline - settle or we will file - and they don't settle by the date, you have to file or lose credibility with your opposing counsel. I still believe that AB needs a much more substantial legal defense team if he is going to litigate this matter.
Michael Irvin has held TV jobs basically non-stop through multiple run-ins with the law including multiple sexual assault allegations IIRC. He also stabbed a teammate in the neck back in the day. Charisma goes a long way when you're an all-time great.Right, and Gordon is most definitely a sympathetic figure at this point. I am rooting like hell for him to stabilize himself to the point where his life post-football is a good one. An AB redemption story seems incredibly unlikely, especially given how his behavior is trending these last few years.
God, I hate letting myself get dragged into this. But I think it's totally rational for her to cooperate with the NFL. If the NFL puts him on the exempt list as a consequence of her cooperation, it's added leverage for her, because it's likely that to get off the exempt list would require his complete exoneration -- both civilly and criminally (which will take years) -- or for her to no longer be an aggrieved victim. In other words, if she gets him on the exempt list, I think she has the keys to the kingdom. She might have agreed to confidentiality if he had paid her the $2 million, but cooperating with the NFL is just a fuck you to him for not playing ball, so to speak.“Normal confidentiality” in a settlement like this doesn’t usually involve the accuser doing an interview with the accused’s employer beforehand.
In fact, the purpose of confidentiality is to accomplish basically the opposite of that.
Has anyone found anything written on why she is doing the interview with the league? Like, how will that affect her leverage in the civil suit?
It’s like everyone takes for granted she would cooperate with the NFL, when it’s really not obvious that she would or should do so. Why is she doing it? Curious.
If the league finds her story credible and puts AB in try exempt list, would they take him off, knowing what they know, just because she settled the case?God, I hate letting myself get dragged into this. But I think it's totally rational for her to cooperate with the NFL. If the NFL puts him on the exempt list as a consequence of her cooperation, it's added leverage for her, because it's likely that to get off the exempt list would require his complete exoneration (which will take years) or for her to no longer be an aggrieved victim. In other words, if she gets him on the exempt list, I think she has the keys to the kingdom. She might have agreed to confidentiality if he had paid her the $2 million, but cooperating with the NFL is just a fuck you to him for not playing ball, so to speak.
By contrast, if she cooperates with the NFL and the NFL doesn't put him on the exempt list, it's probably no downside to her, because I doubt the NFL's actions would be admissible in the civil proceeding.
Lets see if any team gets two draft picks for AB let alone 6 incredible years of production.PREFACE: This is simply my opinion. Clearly no one really knows what went on.
Anyway, I just disagree with the fact that that allowing the guy to get away with increasingly crazy behavior is the sign of a great coach.
Well, I think as a general rule, law enforcement and regulatory agencies are more likely to discharge an investigation if a "victim" has been made whole. So if you assume the NFL is investigating like, say, the SEC would, then there is a likelihood that settling matters with the victim tends to resolve things. Unfortunately, as we all know, DV matters are frequently discharged this way. Without a complaining witness, the matter is not pursued. The bigger issue is that there's just no down side for her to cooperate. If she gets him on the exempt list, she's exercising power over him and making it less likely that he wants to keep pushing forward civilly.If the league finds her story credible and puts AB in try exempt list, would they take him off, knowing what they know, just because she settled the case?
That strikes me as unlikely-toothpaste doesn’t go back in the tube. So I don’t see how getting him put on the exempt list gets her any leverage. Of course, it seems she threatened to do so previously, so it may make sense to follow through on her threats, as with filing.
Not to derail the thread further than I already have, but the details of the Roethlisberger incident that allegedly transpired in 2010 is forever burned into my brain. Vile, vile stuff.Big Ben is almost certainly a rapist and paid two guards to guard the bathroom he was raping someone in. So there’s that example, too.
You think the NFL's findings would be admissible? Man, I'd be screaming holy hell about due process and the prejudice of introducing those findings.If I was AB's lawyer or agent, I would remind the NFL that if they exempt or suspend him while a civil trial is going on, they will be handing the plaintiff a great fact/piece of background. Subtext: the NFL examined this and concluded that Brown was "guilty enough" (non-legal term there) to put him on ice. However you explain it (good of the game, broad powers), that fact could affect jurors. I would also expressly reserve all rights against them in the event that they nevertheless exempt or suspend. My prediction is that Goodell will fall back on letting the legal process take care of itself UNLESS she is REALLY compelling when they meet her. I also think Goodell should and in fact will not act unless and until Brown has also been interviewed, so as to at least appear to have given both sides a shot.
The damage is done. The complaint was filed. Nothing is confidential any more. Now it's settle or face the music in court time for the defendant.Do you think she’s giving up on the possibility of a settlement? I mean, what would AB settle for once confidentiality is off the table?
(Unless, of course, he thought he would lose and can settle for less than a jury award.)
That makes sense. Thank you.Well, I think as a general rule, law enforcement and regulatory agencies are more likely to discharge an investigation if a "victim" has been made whole. So if you assume the NFL is investigating like, say, the SEC would, then there is a likelihood that settling matters with the victim tends to resolve things. Unfortunately, as we all know, DV matters are frequently discharged this way. Without a complaining witness, the matter is not pursued. The bigger issue is that there's just no down side for her to cooperate. If she gets him on the exempt list, she's exercising power over him and making it less likely that he wants to keep pushing forward civilly.
Of course, we're all making this up and speculating, and assuming that the NFL will operate rationally, or similar to any other body is probably a bridge too far.
I dunno about NFL meetings, but college judicial board hearings are frequently admissible, and often intentionally used by lawyers to bypass discovery and admissibility rules. It’s a fucking shitshow.You think the NFL's findings would be admissible? Man, I'd be screaming holy hell about due process and the prejudice of introducing those findings.
"My neighborhood block association convened a kangaroo court and decided he was guilty. Or liable. Whatever. We had the local lawyer even preside over it and everything! That should be admissible too!"I dunno about NFL meetings, but college judicial board hearings are frequently admissible, and often intentionally used by lawyers to bypass discovery and admissibility rules. It’s a fucking shitshow.
I’ve never gotten what I thought was a good answer as to why they are admissible.
Who here do you think hasn't already accepted that?I think we have to be ready to accept the possibility that one of our biggest weapons is a volatile asshole who, at the least, has boundary issues and rips people off
Oh it wasn’t calling anyone out specifically. Just a blanket “we’re gonna have to get used to it”. I know there’s a few folks who aren’t thrilled with his presence and I’m just saying that AB on the Pats is a reality that we’ll have to make our peace with.Who here do you think hasn't already accepted that?
One of those not thrilled with it is me and I indeed have made peace with it. It's not like I'm not going to be happy when he makes plays that is just the nature of sports. There is a breaking point to how much I can put up with of a player's off the field behavior and it's getting close to it with Brown.Oh it wasn’t calling anyone out specifically. Just a blanket “we’re gonna have to get used to it”. I know there’s a few folks who aren’t thrilled with his presence and I’m just saying that AB on the Pats is a reality that we’ll have to make our peace with.
This is where I am too. I can’t control who wears the uniform but at what point will I abandon rooting for the team because they chose to put someone out there who I simply cannot root for and I’d rather not watch? AB apparently isn’t it for me but I feel like it’s close. Either that or I’ll tolerate anyone and I am just kidding myself by pretending to have a breaking point.One of those not thrilled with it is me and I indeed have made peace with it. It's not like I'm not going to be happy when he makes plays that is just the nature of sports. There is a breaking point to how much I can put up with of a player's off the field behavior and it's getting close to it with Brown.
Man, I know how you feel. I like to think I have a line but my childish laughter at watching AB score 6 and dive into the stands suggests that I might be full of shit. My feelings are conflicted but I think that the Pats playing well is going to win out over my moral hang ups. What that says about me, I’m not sure.This is where I am too. I can’t control who wears the uniform but at what point will I abandon rooting for the team because they chose to put someone out there who I simply cannot root for and I’d rather not watch? AB apparently isn’t it for me but I feel like it’s close. Either that or I’ll tolerate anyone and I am just kidding myself by pretending to have a breaking point.
Can they keep him on the exempt list even next year when he's not even under contract? I would think the NFLPA starts to get involved if the league tries to put a player on the exampt list as de facto suspension in a way that doesn't even allow him to enter into a contract. The exempt list is supposed to basically be leave with pay while the NFL conducts an investigation into a matter that at most gets six games of suspension. I would think that if it were just used as a tool to effectively suspend a player for 4 years, it would be problematic.God, I hate letting myself get dragged into this. But I think it's totally rational for her to cooperate with the NFL. If the NFL puts him on the exempt list as a consequence of her cooperation, it's added leverage for her, because it's likely that to get off the exempt list would require his complete exoneration -- both civilly and criminally (which will take years) -- or for her to no longer be an aggrieved victim. In other words, if she gets him on the exempt list, I think she has the keys to the kingdom. She might have agreed to confidentiality if he had paid her the $2 million, but cooperating with the NFL is just a fuck you to him for not playing ball, so to speak.
By contrast, if she cooperates with the NFL and the NFL doesn't put him on the exempt list, it's probably no downside to her, because I doubt the NFL's actions would be admissible in the civil proceeding.
...the one where the sports star isn't always the protagonist?Of course, all this discussion is very cynical. We use words like leverage and try to judge motivation and ask whether it's smart for the lawyers to do, and all that. The part of the discussion that we don't seem ever to have is kind of the elephant in the room...
Yeah, it's a good article. The story is being told by mostly men, mostly for men, and the story is about the man. The story is binary -- either he is falsely accused and may be deprived the chance to play or he is a very bad person who shouldn't play. Rarely does the second side of the equation allow even for the point -- let alone discussion -- that it also means a woman was raped. We're on post 1860 something here. Almost all men, I think....the one where the sports star isn't always the protagonist?
I don’t. But I also think such findings would be widely known and would taint would be jurors.You think the NFL's findings would be admissible? Man, I'd be screaming holy hell about due process and the prejudice of introducing those findings.
Would he have to pay anyone who claims he ows them money, without having a judge or jury decide if he’s liable first? That seems very wrong. But the NFL is already investigating a civil claim and we have no idea if/how they’re going to make conclusions there, so nothing’s too crazy I guess.Separate from the sexual assault allegations, I am wondering where the serial non payment of debts falls under the conduct policy. Would The League tell AB to pay the people he owes money to or risk sanction?
That’s another avenue I don’t think the owners want to open up. The Haslam’s and Wilfs were both cited for fraud and the NFL never said a peep.Separate from the sexual assault allegations, I am wondering where the serial non payment of debts falls under the conduct policy. Would The League tell AB to pay the people he owes money to or risk sanction?
Definitely was expecting to hear something. Surprised we haven’t heard about timing of a meetings with Marquise and Antonio.So nothing leaked out about the meeting yesterday huh?
When is AB talking to the league?
Separate from the sexual assault allegations, I am wondering where the serial non payment of debts falls under the conduct policy. Would The League tell AB to pay the people he owes money to or risk sanction?
I agree that's an area the NFL would want to avoid. Often disputes about unpaid debts get into ratholes about whether the parties actually entered into a binding contract, whether the contracted services were indeed performed, the exact payment terms that were agreed to (if any), and all sorts of other angles that the league would have no hope of resolving with any degree of certainty. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of players in a lot of sports get sued in civil court for similar disputes.That’s another avenue I don’t think the owners want to open up. The Haslam’s and Wilfs were both cited for fraud and the NFL never said a peep.
Tuesday is not normally a practice day for a Sunday game. It's typically the day the coaches huddle up to finalize the game plan and put the week's practice drills in place. Players can come in for treatment and work out on their own, and there may be some film review sessions.The less news the better. If the NFL chooses to take action, there's a decent chance that it will leak out before they do. I am surprised that we have not heard about an AB meeting, and today would be a good day to conduct it (assuming the Pats are not having a practice).
That is surprising as it (mention of the SI article) was on the national news (NBC) this morning.ESPN hasn’t mentioned this SI article at all, at least on its website. Contrast that with Deflategate, where a whiff of anything from anywhere was blown up times a million. I’m not sure what to make of it.