UKBillFan

Any proof of any of this or are we jumping to conclusions... again?

He'll be placed on the practice squad and it's highly unlikely anyone will come in for him.

The civil claim was made on Thursday - that's when it was picked up by the wider media.

In an incident but they did not know the severity of it. How would theconversation have gone? Exec: Araiza may have been been involved in an incident. NFL: What kind of incident? Exec: No idea. NFL: Is it serious? Exec: No idea. NFL: Are any other people involved? Exec: No idea. NFL: Could it raise questions about his personal conduct? Exec: No idea. NFL: Well... thanks.

That first sentence. Wow. Just... wow.

What do you reckon we'll do? Run a training camp of sorts with those interested - perhaps see how they work with holding for Bass?

It's possible the Bills told him not too. Or his attorney (who isn't much better than the alleged victim's attorney) did. For his job, it might have been better to speak out. For his chances in court, it may be better to keep quiet for now other than the controlled statements.

We got through last year with Haack. OK, maybe we had higher hopes via the draft, but now we're in a position where we have to make the best of a bad situation. There are and will be adequate punters out there.

Araiza could have held a press conference and gone through each step of the lawsuit, denying each in turn. He still would have been cut.

Ah, apologies for the misunderstanding if so. Odd how Wawrow apparently found these two teams but the Bills couldn't. Or perhaps did, and Beane answered the question very carefully. In other words, did the Bills expect it to be settled? Otherwise, surely the risk of it coming out was obvious.

Araiza went into the draft with doubts about his holding and hang time. On most mock drafts he was the third or fourth punter to be picked, and he went third. There is nothing to indicate whether the two who chose before us had a clue about any of the allegations or not.

Regarding Haack, if we wanted him we wouldn't have cut him in the first place.

Except he's basically doing the defense's job for them by posting contradictory statements and texts. Think it was pointed out that the journal (horrific as it was to read) even countered some points made in the lawsuit. Now he's saying that an apology and a donation to a rape charity would make all of this go away??? He's harming the alleged victim's case, not helping it.

Seems to be a lot of confusion about the defence of statutory rape in Californian law. Some assume witnesses claiming she was saying she 18 will be enough to mean charges won't be made (if substantial), others think it won't be enough.

McDemott mentioned Hyde in the press conference, indicating he had an input in this manner.

Exactly. The law should be carried out in court; not on social media.

From a business angle, cutting him was the obvious decision. From a legal standpoint, he's currently innocent until proven guilty, no matter what an attorney, who seems to be losing the plot, posts on Twitter.

The point is not to assume guilt before proven, just as aspersions should not be cast towards the victim either.

This is what I don't get. Why did the lawsuit then quote the alleged victim ask him "Did we actually have sex?". The lawsuit doesn't actually quote Araiza directly in agreeing they did, even consenually. It's very odd phrasing.

In brackets. ALLEGEDLY. 200+ posts on on the other thread, 25 pages on this thread and still it's a case of guilty before being proven innocent.

Then he'll probably be picked up by a team and play as punter.

Don't think we can be sure either way. It was an easy decision as he was a rookie and a punter.

Beane admitted that in the conference - stated it should have really said ‘continuing’.

Though, in turn, that will free up another punter. Knowing us, probably Haack.

He hasn’t played for three years. Still think the best option will be whoever the Titans cut. Bojorquez is with the Browns.