2019 AB Watch: Legal & Exemption List Posts Only

Status
Not open for further replies.

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
13,165
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'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.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
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.
“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.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
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.
 

RSN Diaspora

molests goats for comedy
SoSH Member
Jul 29, 2005
6,939
Washington, DC
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.
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.
 

fairlee76

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2005
2,984
jp
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.
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.
 

Gash Prex

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 18, 2002
1,777
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.
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
36,595
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.
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.
 

fairlee76

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2005
2,984
jp
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.
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.

I realize we don't know everything that went on with Hernandez in the Pats locker room, but based on a few guys' statements (Matt Light comes to mind) his off-the-field activities/associations were known and the Pats managed to overlook them for a few years in exchange for AH's producing on the field.

This is quite the adventure we're on with this dude and Gordon. Like the Kardashians but for the football field. And with more non-payment of debts and child support. And with so many potentially zany plot twists to come over the next 16+ weeks!
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
8,958
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.
 

fairlee76

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2005
2,984
jp
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.
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.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
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.
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.)
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
35,350
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.
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.

Edit: I guess it depends on how redemption is being defined. At a moral/personal level, yeah not so much.
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
9,115
guam
“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.
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.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
21,880
Here
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.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
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.
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.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
20,617
Saskatoon Canada
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.
Lets see if any team gets two draft picks for AB let alone 6 incredible years of production.
The article was petty clear things have gotten worse recently and Tomlin, benched him, then traded him. The articles states observers saw Timlin as a guy able to talk reason with AB, and quiet many storms. "Mike Tomlin, though criticized internally for being too forgiving of Brown’s chronic lateness to meetings and games, was one of the few people in the NFL who could relate to Brown and defuse his worst instincts."

You are not one of the people that was angry the press reported Patriots being upset that Tom Brady's trainer was in the locker room are you? I recall lots of people saying BB knew to walk the line to keep his superstar happy. I don't see differences. Both coaches also reached a limit and ended the annoyance.
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
9,115
guam
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.
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.
 

fairlee76

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2005
2,984
jp
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.
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.
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
9,115
guam
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.
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.
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
9,115
guam
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.)
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.

This is the dilemma of pre-filing negotiations. In the short term, filing a complaint tends to reduce your leverage as there is presumed value to the defendant in resolving it out of court.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
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.
That makes sense. Thank you.

I was curious as to why she might give up a source of leverage, but that ship may have sailed with the filing of the civil complaint that went public. I can see how there may be no downside. Besides having to hang out with NFL executives, I mean.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
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.
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.
 
Last edited:

Gash Prex

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 18, 2002
1,777
Any finding/report/investigation the by the NFL would be hearsay and completely inadmissible at the trial. Any statements made by relevant witnesses (including AB and Britney) can be used however- this is where the jeopardy of both clients plays out. I don't know if they take testimony under oath in this type of "investigation". From AB's perspective, not only is there a serious issues with the NFL findings for his professional life, but any statements he makes would be admissible in civil and criminal proceedings. I would not allow him to appear if he was my client without signing off that he understands the substantial and real risks. Its a catch 22 for AB in that regard - his legal issues are in direct conflict with his professional issues (continue to play football and make money).

I think there is almost no chance of settlement at this point - the toothpaste has left the tube and there is no putting it back. Maybe in a couple of years if he is not suspended he can quietly make this go away, but I doubt it. He doesn't seem to have good judgment.

Derick Rose is a good example of this actually working out for a player. Nobody ever mentions it when talking about him.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
8,958
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.
"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 guess it's part of the trend of trying to rely on arbitration whenever possible to get a case out of the docket, but man if there isn't a steep dropoff from the AAA to Roger fuckin Goodwill...
 

BornToRun

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 4, 2011
12,118
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. If the team hasn’t cut bait yet, in the wake of arguably the most disturbing allegations, then I don’t know if any of the new stuff is going to move the needle all that much. A lot of his transgressions were already known before all this mess to begin with.

If The Hammer, big ‘if’ here, doesn’t wield his sword of infinite justice against AB then I think we have to assume that the Pats are going to stand by him and let him play. How we should feel about that, I don’t know but I think it’s a question we’ll all have to ask ourselves from a personal standpoint.
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
36,595
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
Who here do you think hasn't already accepted that?
 

BornToRun

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 4, 2011
12,118
Who here do you think hasn't already accepted that?
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.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
39,777
deep inside Guido territory
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.
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.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
5,321
Needham, MA
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.
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.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
26,911
AZ
So, if you're the NFL's lawyers and they ask you how they should structure this investigation what do you advise them?

Any statement that either of them makes is going to be admissible and the person conducting the investigation is going to be a potential witness. So, first thing, I don't want Roger within a mile of the room. I try to keep the circle that actually meets with either of them as narrow as possible. And then with respect to their work product I guess I try to make all of it go through lawyers. That gives me a facial privilege argument but it's going to be tough.

What about written work product? What about notes? Do you let the investigators take them? Do you preserve them? Do you put an NFL lawyer in the room with either Brown or Taylor?

Do you allow outside investigation? Do you take statements from potential peripheral witnesses? Do you use outside private investigators? Do you let anyone have a lawyer in the room?

How do you protect your investigators' mental impressions? They are likely not admissible in the civil suit but they are almost surely discoverable.

Federal court so you can't resist a document or deposition subpoena but do you consider trying to use only people who can't be compelled to attend a trial if it gets to it? You're the NFL are you going to play that game? Or are you going to assume that you're likely going to have someone who may have to testify at trial?

Most scary is that you cannot control relevance. Relevance will be determined by what Brown and Taylor choose to argue. So, while you can work your ass off to protect Roger, once you let him participate you are potentially putting him in the witness chair depending on what the litigants choose to say or not say. You really don't want him being asked, "and why didn't you do X" or anything like that.

When the NFL acts as investigator in player situations, it's relatively comfortable about how the process will play out. In the criminal context they can kind of navigate that ok too and when the complaianant hasn't filed suit, like in Elliott, they can be relatively confident that the only place they are really going to have to have production obligations is the litigation over the discipline under the CBA. To make themselves witnesses in a civil dispute that involves a civilian is a bit of a scary proposition for the lawyers.

Employers face these issues all the time -- they conduct investigations where their employees are involved and they know that litigation may occur. But the NFL is not an employer. They are a league. They have no contract with Brown other than the CBA and that only governs their rights and obligation viz. him as a player. Taylor is not their employee.

I fear they may be hot to trot for Brown on this. Injecting yourself into someone else's civil dispute is not something you do casually and it's not something that the lawyers are too keen about.
 

BornToRun

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 4, 2011
12,118
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.
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.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
6,091
You guys are saying what I’m feeling. I just have decided that I may as well quit watching and being a fan of team sports if I’m going to not root for my team if it has major a-holes on it. Because it’s not easy to find a team that doesn’t have one. At some point your favorite franchise (whatever it is) is going to employ someone that is pretty despicable.

And then what about movies or whatever too. Same principle.

So I’m trying like crazy to compartmentalize. It’s really hard in this case but I’m trying.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
26,911
AZ
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.
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.

I don't know why she's cooperating. As a lawyer, you have to be very cautious about letting your client give statements in a he said she said, especially before discovery. The NFL's ultimate decision is not likely to be admissible. But her statements to the NFL are definitely proper impeachment. Any statement that a litigant gives to anyone that is not privilege is potentially admissible. This is really no different than if you let her talk to a reporter unless you feel very confident that the NFL can resist discovery.

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 that could very well help explain motivation.

Either he raped her or he didn't. None of us knows. But they know. Now, it could be a Rashomon thing where they each look back on the event or non-event differently and have convinced themselves about their version. But what matters here is what they genuinely believe about events that only the two of them were witnesses to.

So, when one asks, why would she meet with the NFL you have to take into account the possibility that she was raped, and that her view might be, "fuck, I'll tell the story a million times and it's the same story and I don't give a fuck who knows and I want everyone to know, because I've been living with this eating me alive for years and fuck him and I hope the NFL kills him." Or something like that. If he raped her, that's really all the motivation she needs. Or it could be the other thing and this really all just is a game of leverage and chess moves and perceived advantage and settlement posture. But we just don't know what we don't know.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
26,911
AZ
...the one where the sports star isn't always the protagonist?
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.

It's kind of the same in other areas too -- not just sports. Louis C.K. was the protaganist of the story. Still is. Is he an asshole or a misunderstood guy who deserves a second chance? That's the story and the question. We almost pretend we take it as a given that rape is bad so, nothing to talk about there, right? It's just an excuse to control the narrative. It's kind of repulsive.

Edit: Thought provoking too. I'm sure somewhere above I talked about the story as though it were "if he did it he's a piece of shit," and not "if he did it, this poor woman and what she must be going through and holy cow this really shows how nearly impossible it is for a woman when she's raped by a public and popular guy who plays sports."
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
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.
I don’t. But I also think such findings would be widely known and would taint would be jurors.
 
Last edited:

Gunfighter 09

wants to be caribou ken
Staff member
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
7,177
KPWT
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?
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
9,395
Waltham, MA
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?
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.
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
36,595
So nothing leaked out about the meeting yesterday huh?

When is AB talking to the league?
 

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
4,089
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.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
31,915
So nothing leaked out about the meeting yesterday huh?

When is AB talking to the league?
Definitely was expecting to hear something. Surprised we haven’t heard about timing of a meetings with Marquise and Antonio.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
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).
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,809
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.
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.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,809
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).
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.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
21,880
Here
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.
 

CantKeepmedown

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,760
Portland, ME
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.
That is surprising as it (mention of the SI article) was on the national news (NBC) this morning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.