Uh, you got me? I guess.
Feel free to start that thread, and I'll let you know, but I'm in the Araiza thread and I feel I can be judgmental about the subject of the thread I'm posting in without commenting on every asshole in the NFL.
Matt Araiza Cleared of Gang-Rape at SDSU; Signed by Chiefs
- Thread starter sodenj5
- Start date
- Status
Feel free to start that thread, and I'll let you know, but I'm in the Araiza thread and I feel I can be judgmental about the subject of the thread I'm posting in without commenting on every asshole in the NFL.
Araiza's parents have put out a statement. Oh boy.
View: https://twitter.com/BStoneKUSI/status/1564378918408183808/photo/1
Statement from Mr. and Mrs. Araiza, parents of
Matt Araiza
The rule of law is innocent until proven quilty.
That is not our experience. There has been war
waged on our son. He has been tried and
convicted in the media based on information
released solely from the alleged victim and her
attorney, much of it through social media. People
have taken his information as factual, when it is
not.
We do not wish this experience on anvone, but
question why our son is the only one receiving
this kind of treatment by social media and
national news media. The vitriol has been on him
alone.
He has been extorted, discriminated against,
harassed and the subject of multiple and
continuous threats of violence and death. He has
been released from his job and our entire family
continues to receive horrific threats of violence
and death. We have all been canceled. Every
member of our family.
Salacious rumors grew as fact. There are
multiple witness reports to deny the claims that
are made against him. The legal system is
designed to find the facts and make decisions.
They should be allowed to do that.
View: https://twitter.com/BStoneKUSI/status/1564378918408183808/photo/1
Statement from Mr. and Mrs. Araiza, parents of
Matt Araiza
The rule of law is innocent until proven quilty.
That is not our experience. There has been war
waged on our son. He has been tried and
convicted in the media based on information
released solely from the alleged victim and her
attorney, much of it through social media. People
have taken his information as factual, when it is
not.
We do not wish this experience on anvone, but
question why our son is the only one receiving
this kind of treatment by social media and
national news media. The vitriol has been on him
alone.
He has been extorted, discriminated against,
harassed and the subject of multiple and
continuous threats of violence and death. He has
been released from his job and our entire family
continues to receive horrific threats of violence
and death. We have all been canceled. Every
member of our family.
Salacious rumors grew as fact. There are
multiple witness reports to deny the claims that
are made against him. The legal system is
designed to find the facts and make decisions.
They should be allowed to do that.
I do kind of feel bad for the Araiza parents. His family certainly doesn’t deserve to be attacked. But they clearly don’t understand why the Bills don’t want to put up with significant negative media for a rookie punter.
Man, I wonder where he could’ve gotten the impression that he could gang rape someone and get away with no consequences from it
I get wanting to believe your son didn’t do the things he’s been accused of, and I get being upset that his NFL career is seemingly over because of what you believe are false accusations, but holy hell, that statement.
CBS news interviewed the victim tonight and it is inconceivable to me that she would be lying based on that interview, her journal entries right after, and the pictures they showed (which I am sure are not the graphic ones that also exist). His lawyer accused her of engaging in a money grab to which she replied (a) she reported it to friends and the authorities right after and (b) she had no clue who he was or that he might one day be an NFL player, which seemed like a pretty good answer to me. This kid and his family can fuck right off.
CBS news interviewed the victim tonight and it is inconceivable to me that she would be lying based on that interview, her journal entries right after, and the pictures they showed (which I am sure are not the graphic ones that also exist). His lawyer accused her of engaging in a money grab to which she replied (a) she reported it to friends and the authorities right after and (b) she had no clue who he was or that he might one day be an NFL player, which seemed like a pretty good answer to me. This kid and his family can fuck right off.
Thanks.
Not that victims should be expected to do this, but good for her for speaking out. Araiza's lawyer's "money grab" defense sounds ridiculous. He was a fucking college punter at the time she reported it, and they filed suit before he made any real NFL money. But I understand they don't have many options.
I don’t feel bad for his parents. I kind of feel bad for his family members not responsible for raising him who may be getting the threats.
But it pales thousand-fold to the actual victim of the violence. Good for her for speaking up.
The parental statement is complete bs though after consideration of the concepts of strict liability and self-incrimination.
The family didn’t deserve disdain until that tone deaf statement. Those pictures and journal entries are extremely helpful when it comes to establishing guilt. I can only hope that a DA’s office is looking at this case.
So speaking of Brady Hoke, he had his AD JD Wicker had a press conference to ostensibly talk about the football game and the new stadium. After a few questions about Araiza, they walked out (see video below). In fairness, Wicker did return after about 15 minutes to answer questions but Hoke did not.
View: https://twitter.com/TODDSTRAINNBCSD/status/1564359362637754368?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1564359362637754368%7Ctwgr%5E14fa4e0cd782db03999a14044a2761460a517ed5%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fnypost.com%2F2022%2F08%2F30%2Fsdsu-defends-handling-of-araiza-gang-rape-allegation-inquiry%2F
Speaking of Hoke, he had previously told the SD Union Tribune that "he wasn’t aware of the details and specific allegations until a June 3 story in the Los Angeles Times that broke the news of the alleged Halloween party incident." See: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/aztecs/story/2022-08-28/sdsu-aztecs-football-gang-rape-allegations-brenda-tracy.
However, on Monday, he apparently said that he "didn’t know star punter Matt Araiza had been accused of participating in the gang rape of a 17-year-old girl at an off-campus party in October until a civil lawsuit was filed last week." https://nypost.com/2022/08/30/sdsu-defends-handling-of-araiza-gang-rape-allegation-inquiry/.
While these two statements don't necessarily contradict each other, I'll note a few things:
- The LA Times report in June noted at least two anonymous student reports of the allegations were filed with SDSU and both noted that all of the football players were aware of this.
- As noted in the SD Union Trib story I linked above, SDSU brought in Brenda Tracy, a sexual assault survivor, to talk about her experiences. In the email to her and her booking agent, SDSU's' Title IX deputy coordinator for athletics said that Tracy's first two speaking priorities were to the Football Team and Football Coaches. These meetings were mandatory. We all know that this doesn't happen without Hoke's input.
- Finally, even believing everything SDSU said about pausing their investigation while the criminal investigation was occurring (which I'm sure SDSU was more then pleased to do), the SD police department gave the "all-clear" signal to SDSU on July 26. If Hoke really had no idea that Araiza and at least two current members of his football team were implicated, that's only because he didn't want to know.
I have to believe that it's impossible that Hoke didn't know that football players were implicated immediately after the incident.
He did. His assertions to the contrary are simply a smokescreen.
The good news is that the more he tries to avoid the topic, the greater the chances that he’s becomes trapped in the nuclear footprint of Araiza's case.
Can’t happen too soon.
Isn’t this the second time Hoke has made the same “I didn’t know” claims about sexual assault claims involving a kicker, the last time at Michigan?
As for the parents’, the statements remind me a ton of the Stanford swimmer’s dad - Brock Turner was it? Only focused on the entitlement and what the rapist lost. You can almost see why their kids grow up to be shitty too, although it’s obviously more than just bad parenting.
As for the parents’, the statements remind me a ton of the Stanford swimmer’s dad - Brock Turner was it? Only focused on the entitlement and what the rapist lost. You can almost see why their kids grow up to be shitty too, although it’s obviously more than just bad parenting.
In the parents' statement, it's the use of the 'canceled' trope that gets me. I'm not hip to the lingo, but don't you actually need to be somebody before you get canceled? They're the parents of a rookie punter who had a trendy nickname.
It’s now the go to deflection for any remotely public person who does something reprehensible and/or stupid, and gets called out for it. But yeah, the idea that they are somehow victims in this, when 99% of population doesn’t doesn’t know their names, and couldn’t pick them out of a lineup, is laughable.
I'm guessing the "multiple witnesses" were the other aholes that were taking turns with Araiza.
Everything about this sucks and I feel for the young woman.
Everything about this sucks and I feel for the young woman.
Yes, Avg Reds pointed out that Hoke used the same playbook for Branden Gibbons in 2014. Here's one article on it: https://www.mlive.com/wolverines/2014/02/brady_hoke_issues_statement_sa.html
Also, since you mentioned Brock Turner, I was curious about him. Turns out he's back in Dayton working at a cooling company (or was as of last year): https://www.voxbliss.com/brock-turner-now/. Not quite the life I'm sure he imagined when he was a hotshot swimmer at Stanford.
Also, his name was in the papers again last week (by coincidence) - women in Dayton OH are using Tik Tok and other social media to warn people that Turner has been frequenting bars in the area: https://sfist.com/2022/08/22/stanford-rapist-brock-turner-goes-viral-again-on-tiktok-in-ohio/.
Last edited:
I don't know what the family deserves or does not t deserve - other than threats of violence, which obviously no one deserves - but IMO their statement goes way beyond "tone deaf." It's clear to me that they've known about this for some time and the fact that they can't even acknowledge that the victim was, well, victimized is part of the problem. I mean even assuming just for the sake of this post that their Precious wasn't actually a perpetrator, I can't even begin to wrap my head around adults whose only reference to a 17 YO girl who was (allegedly) raped and assaulted is to say, "We do not wish this experience on anyone."
"This experience." The same term someone would use if they got bad service at a fancy restaurant.
I'm sure this has been a shock to their system and again, no one deserves threats of violence but man, I can't even imagine what it takes to release such a statement.
Yup. The use of that term was disqualifying for me. They seem like shitty people. Their son almost certainly is one.
That and the "presumption of innocence." It's so weird that everyone claims to hate lawyers but then everyone wants to try to talk like them (us).
There is one place there is a presumption of innocence. In a courtroom when someone's liberty is at stake. That's a good rule.
Everywhere else in the world, there actually is truth. There are facts. When there's no video we all have to live with uncertainty and make up our minds based on common sense, our experience, our judgment, and what facts we do know. And in none of this are we, or employers, or reporters, or anyone else, required to impose a presumption of innocence.
In fact, we can impose whatever presumptions we like. Such as: Women do not tend to lie about being raped nor do they voluntarily submit to the continued invasion that reporting a rape entails. When we're not in a courtroom, that's just as good a presumption as any other presumption.
Yet somehow these courtroom presumptions and this idea about the "rule of law" seem to have permeated regular society. There may very well be good arguments why and when a presumption that someone did not do a crime might be a good idea to use as a touchstone outside a courtroom. But it's sure as shit not obvious or self-apparent.
Gibbons's "sexual misconduct" took place in November 2009. Hoke was Michigan's coach from 2011-2014. The university expelled Gibbons in December 2013 after an inexplicably over-long investigation. In other words, the Gibbons case was more of a university problem than a Hoke problem.
Dan Wetzel report that prosecutors had determined Araiza left the party before the supposed gang rape: https://sports.yahoo.com/prosecutors-former-bills-punter-matt-araiza-wasnt-present-during-alleged-gang-rape-225211550.html
I’m guessing no. He’s a punter and still had sexual relations with an underage girl in what you correctly described as an awful situation. If he were a QB or skill player maybe, because … football. But I would guess no one is going to extend themselves for a special teams guy. Still, no one ever went broke over, estimating the ethics of the NFL.
Relatedly, I thought it was interesting that on the Yahoo! Sports page I linked above that there was an article on noted shit heel, Greg Hardy now working at a Walmart after making $18 million in the NFL.
He was a 21 year old who seems to have had consensual sex (I understand the under 18 law, but no prosecutor ever chooses to prosecute this and for good reason) with a 17 year old at a party where everyone was probably hammered. He’s either being extorted or the girl does not remember correctly the situation, and he spent the last year being called a horrible gang rapist by people who had absolutely no clue what happened. The dude is not some monster like Greg Hardy. He should be signed, he might be the best in the world at what he does and the above should not disqualify anyone from employment forever (or arguably at all).
Obviously an awful situation but I don't see how he isn't in a camp this summer and probably in high demand. How many college kids have had sex with a 17-yr old? I'd guess that many didn't even know if she was 17 or a freshman as nobody is getting carded at midnight. That isn't anything anyone should receive a lifetime penalty for unless there is more that is out there.
Edit: What Ed said.
Additionally per the article two witnesses at the party said they heard her saying she was 18, and there is video from a different party the previous night of her saying she was 18. Why does this kid deserve to be blackballed from the league?
We'll have to see where a punter who missed a year of football falls on the "is this worth it for our team to pursue" scale. He was a sixth round pick in a position that is generally not one teams invest a ton into in terms of resources. I suspect some team will bring him in for a camp at the least, but a lot of teams will be happy with their specialist or have play preferences that end up elsewhere (he can boom the ball but some teams want less of a leg and more of a directional guy). If looking as specialists who brought soe media attention, Rohrwasser was stashed on Injured/PS before losing to Folk and hasn't been seen since despite covering up the tattoo and disavowing the association. There's definitely going to be some teams, probably a lot of teams, that will be happy with their punting options or just don't want the questions surrounding their team for a punter who may not even be an upgrade.
not really. He was a good prospect who got really hyped by a few college sites (most notably the Ringer's Sherman) of the commentary not analyst mode marveling over his enormous distances, but his NFL prospects weren't as high, since he wasn't great at technical stuff like directional punting, placement, and his distance often came from lower punts over the heads of returners that rolled, rather than the hang-time punts the NFL wants to see.
he was the 3rd punter drafted in his own year (he went early 6th, Camarda and Stout both went in the 4th) so he clearly wasn't a must get for any teams.
He seemed like a good fit for the Bills at the time specifically because he could smash the ball, and if you’re in a snowy game in December, flipping the field on a punt can prove to be pretty valuable.
I would imagine he’s invited to someone’s camp for a tryout. Specialists aren’t worth locker room and media upheaval, but people will always be fascinated by someone that does something better than the median on a football field.
Thanks, I didn't know that. He did win the Ray Guy Award and was a unanimous All-American his junior year, but yeah, if he was the third punter drafter that year he is hardly a generational prospect.
Possibly a separate convo, but I think it's important to note the two bolded phrases don't really add up together. You can not give consent under the influence.
Wasn't this issue already known, or at least being whispered about, before the draft? That would help explain where he went.
not that I'm aware of, possible some teams heard some things and others didn't but even after the draft there was no "he fell because of character concerns" that I remember, it was mostly "huge leg, not clear how good he is at anything but smashing it far"
There's still a civil case going on. Doubt an NFL team goes near him until that is resolved at least. Not going to want to risk anything else coming out. Lawyer says the prosecutor's report that Araiza had left is based on a single buddy of his.
Teams would really need to do their own exhaustive investigation and how many are going to feel he's worth it? He still had sex with an underaged girl.
Teams would really need to do their own exhaustive investigation and how many are going to feel he's worth it? He still had sex with an underaged girl.
I would also add while there is a lot of new exculpatory evidence here, the fact that people were filming the supposed sexual acts themselves suggest a pretty gross situation all around -- innocent hookups don't usually involve videos of orgies.
Also, while this report seems pretty damning, it's worth taking this with a grain of salt. Wetzel notes in the article that the defense attorney said the whole argument that Araiza wasn't at the party is based on the testimony of a "buddy." Who knows whether that is true, but this certainly wouldn't be the first situation in which prosecutors went light on a star athlete.
Long story short: there's still a lot to be grossed out by here. Also: "I got a blowjob from an underage girl I didn't know was drunk who then went and had group sex with my friends" isn't exactly a testament to character. Yes, it may be a one time thing and out of character. And yes, guys have gone on to have long careers after things like this, rightly or wrongly. But if it were my organization I would probably really, really do my due diligence before even considering bringing him aboard.
Also, while this report seems pretty damning, it's worth taking this with a grain of salt. Wetzel notes in the article that the defense attorney said the whole argument that Araiza wasn't at the party is based on the testimony of a "buddy." Who knows whether that is true, but this certainly wouldn't be the first situation in which prosecutors went light on a star athlete.
Long story short: there's still a lot to be grossed out by here. Also: "I got a blowjob from an underage girl I didn't know was drunk who then went and had group sex with my friends" isn't exactly a testament to character. Yes, it may be a one time thing and out of character. And yes, guys have gone on to have long careers after things like this, rightly or wrongly. But if it were my organization I would probably really, really do my due diligence before even considering bringing him aboard.
I don’t agree with this as a broad statement. There are varying levels of drunk and circumstances, but I’m not willing to say when people go to a college party and get drunk and have sex with each other that everyone is raping each other as a general rule.
You’re right, though, this is probably best discussed elsewhere.
From what I remember, the Ravens for one did not have him on the top of their punting list for two reasons: (i) he wasn't that good in putting the ball inside the 20 (the guy they picked - Jordan Stout - was supposed to be quite special at this which is why they picked him in the 4th round) and (ii) he couldn't hold for FGs/XPs. And the Ravens seem to be pretty good at special teams evaluation.
I agree that NFL teams will wait until the civil suit has been settled. However, he could (probably should) find somewhere else to punt for the time being (Canada?) and then in a couple of years I'm sure a NFL team will give him a shot.
CFL roster rules make landing a spot as an American punter harder than you might imagine. You can only have up to 20 Americans on your roster and you need to carry at least 21 Canadians and at least 2 "global" players. Because there's so much kicking talent coming out of Australia, filling one of the "global" spots with an Australian punter is a popular strategy. At quick glance, it looks like only two teams carried American punters last season.
Last edited:
You may be discussing in PM, but have to add that this would also mean that Araiza and the others are not responsible for their actions while drunk, nor is anyone responsible for their actions when drunk. It's not a principled statement.
I have no idea how you’re getting that from my statement, but if it’s not clear everyone is responsible for their actions when drunk if they willingly chose to get so. My point was if two people go to a party and have a few drinks and decide to have sex, you tell me at what point that’s rape and which party is the offender. Do we take blood samples and the lower BAC is responsible? It obviously depends on the individual circumstances and there’s often a lot of gray area. I don’t understand how this can be offensive or non-principled stance, but ymmv. All I’m saying is there’s room for these kinds of things to be consensual, and sometimes I see people define things where it never would.
Anyway, last I’ll talk about these generalities here. PMs are open if anyone wants.
Last edited:
Sorry for not being clearer - I was agreeing with your statement, and adding to it.
The DA's office just said that the guy was not in the house when this took place. That is a pretty strong defense.
As a father of two girls I can understand how this makes people's blood boil. It certainly does mine (and my daughters were both over 18 when they started College but I still would have taken a baseball bat and smashed something if...). But that aside, a 21 year old College Senior having sex with a 17 year old girl at a party should not be a reason for not employing him.
More so there being a report that the guy was not there.
I does bother me from the article that there was enough evidence of the sexual activity that took place and yet authorities said that the could not determine that it was not consensual. That has to be the one of the hardest things to have to do in a job and also gives a pretty uphill battle for a civil case.
- Status