4merper4mer

The media, like anything else, is made up of individuals. You wrote a dissertation about how the world is a better place because of the media and how we are all too stupid to understand this basic fact. I pointed out how egregiously unprofessional some members of the media have been. You can easily access the press conference if you’d like. I haven’t read every article. I’m sure some are well done. Not all of them are. Even your answers above, stated as remedies for what the Bills could or should have done are factually impossible. The Bills could not approach the league wrt administrative leave for Araiza as the incident in question happened before he was in the NFL. Araiza apparently told the Bills he had nothing to do with anything….they can’t force him to take a personal leave. In fact there is NOT ALWAYS a work around even if you think there should be. Maybe there was one in this case but so far nothing you have proposed is viable. There is a union involved, The police cannot share anything with the Bills, there are likely things the Bills know but cannot share and on and on. The press has not highlighted these things as near as I can tell yet they are happy to be critical of the Bills because all of these answers should have been easy. It’s a joke.

That’s a bit one sided wouldn’t you say? One of the reporters cited a “direct quote” from Araiza in phrasing a question to Beane. I think it was Tim Graham. The “direct quote” he referenced was from the plaintiff’s lawyer’s description of phone call he says took place between the plaintiff and Araiza with police listening in. In what journalistic world would that be considered a “direct quote”? How is a question like that in any way professional? On what planet should Beane take a statement from an adversarial lawyer as admission of guilt by Araiza as the reporter seemed to expect? There are countless other examples of questions asked, articles written and spoken opinions by reporters that simply lack not only context, but factual premises. One example is the new host of GMFB saying some teams had “police reports” before the draft that should have been shared league wide. While I agree with her premise that info like this should be shared, the FACT is that no police report exists even today. There may have been rumors or stories, but calling them police reports is incorrect. Unlike the dishonorable reporter at the Bills presser, she seemed to be trying to get to the truth, but she was still wrong on facts. Do people really expect an organization that takes actions at the whim of lying or ignorant reporters because they are reporters? Shirley. A free press does contribute to society and they are permitted to be biased, as they should be, but when they base their spin on inaccuracies or flat out falsehoods, they should be called on it. The Bills have stated they wanted to base their decision on facts but that it was difficult to gather all facts on this timeline and that Araiza has more to worry about than football. Although skepticism is warranted on any topic like this, nothing they have done publicly has proven their statement false. They are also constrained in how much they can share about what they did and how. Their track record is strong as well. They weren’t perfect and they stated this, but the skewering they are getting is beyond unwarranted.

September is always extended pre-season for the Pats. Reason: No cheatin’ tapes yet.

It’s right there on the recording of the presser. A “direct quote” if there ever was one.

Right. But the reporter….who I think was Graham…..EXPLICITLY called it a direct quote in an attempt to “gotcha” Beane. It was weak, dishonest, and contemptible.

But but but the journalist’s journalist Tim Graham said it was a “direct quote” from Araiza. How dare you question the almighty arbiter or all that is true, Timmy?

The time frame is not unusual for a case like this…..as sad as that seems…..the theories about protecting the university….while not proven false…..are lazy conjecture.

Shirley

The reporters in the presser asked some good questions and some bad ones. One of the last questions, I believe from Graham, was demonstrably antagonistic and ridiculous. I don’t know how Beane just didn’t flat out call him an idiot on the spot. The reporter asked why “direct quotes” from Araiza weren’t taken into account and enough to cut him on the spot…or something along those lines. The “direct quotes” in question were paraphrased from the plaintiff’s lawyer’s third hand account of a phone call that took place after the fact between the victim and Araiza. Beane is in no position to know whether the conversation actually took place and if so, whether the lawyer’s account was accurate. He could have and probably did ask Araiza about it, but for Graham…if it was Graham’s voice….to call them direct quotes is highly unprofessional and irresponsible. He’s a reporter. He is supposed to know the definition of “direct quote”.

Agreed. Maybe they were and maybe they were not. The victim probably doesn’t know whether they were. The SDPD is not going to share any of this with a football team.

The Bills decision and timing should be based on as much truth as they can find. Your impression of what constitutes truth or your perception of how long it should take to find are utterly meaningless. Sorry. No organization operates to 100% efficiency….ever. Im sure the Bills did not. There are people implying SDPD is corrupt in this matter. The sad truth is that these cases take a long time to investigate and are difficult. The timeline on this case isn’t unusual…..that doesn’t make it optimal. Sure, maybe SDPD is covering up but it’s more likely that it was a difficult process. One thing is for sure…..they would never and should never share the results of their objective analysis with a football team while the case is ongoing. That left the Bills with two conflicting parties feeding them diametrically opposed information starting three weeks ago. The accusing party had not taken any formal legal action whatsoever until two days ago. If you think things were easy for the Bills, you’re living in a dreamworld.

What is your overall point here? They should have cut him the minute they heard something because the is evidence in the form of an allegation that was contained in neither a criminal nor a civil filing at the time? Do you think the NFLPA might not have liked that? Do you think the process for something like that is simple?

Section C3 stole my kittens is evidence?

There is a dimension in our universe known as “time”. You may be familiar with it.

If the Seahawks knew and didn’t reach out to the Bills over the last few days to inform them of what they knew, then the Seahawks would have to be a real shady outfit.

A statement from a victim is by definition an allegation, not evidence. Obviously these are allegations of horrible acts and should never be ignored, but calling it evidence is a dangerous path. A allegation deserves investigation, which may or may not turn up evidence. If I said my cat had kittens and SectionC3 stole them, I have not provided any evidence, I’ve only alleged something.

Someone asked that. He said in the last few days they’ve spoken with “double digit” teams, none of whom heard anything. If a team did know something, given the current firestorm, my guess is they would have reached out to Beane.

His story could have stayed the same with or without lies included or an insufficient amount of information. The Bills could have discovered more detail, or a lie. It does not mean this is what happened, we just can’t know that it did not.

If the Bills or any organization puts image above truth then their image will be an illusion. We know a very small percentage of how much the Bills know, when they knew and the whole truth of the situation. The Bills are simply not in a position to share details of something like this. Judging the Bills favorably or unfavorably at this point in time is silly. Based on Beane and McD’s track record I give them a very strong benefit of the doubt. I think they both care deeply about the truth because the truth is the only place from which a strong culture can be built.

They can’t explicitly say he lied. That would be opening them up to lawsuits initiated by Araiza. He may have left things out…..they may have found out he lied from newly revealed facts…..lots of stuff.

Or they were satisfied with Araiza’s initial response/explanation but found out later he lied about part of it. We may never know and there are parts that shouldn’t be public until the appropriate time. Criminal cases outweigh civil which outweigh fans “need to know” by miles.

100% of the currently public info originated with the accuser. It may indeed be the whole story. If not, and somehow Araiza is telling truth to the Bills and they cut him for PR, how does that go over in the room when 3 months from now when more facts come out? Yes, the press will drop it, but as McD pointed out there are people involved. The correct remedies are so simple to apply once the truth is known. Personally I’d cut him even if he had nothing whatsoever to do with the incident but covered it up for his buddies. If he lied at all to the Bills, bye. Obviously anything beyond that he should rot in jail. If he is exonerated but still cut, I think that is a bad look in the room. People matter. The truth matters.

I think that eats a roster spot. That’s a no no.

I hate to say I told you so….