mannc

Wrong

Nope. The texts released by Gilleon show that there were negotiations that broke down...

No, but they needed to have a strong public relations strategy in place to counter the so-far unrebutted story put out there by Gilleon and his client. They should have had a strong counter-narrative ready, even if it wasn't much more than just denying the allegations. They've had months to come up with one and every hour that they don't rebut the Gilleon's story will make it more difficult to win hearts and minds, which is ultimately what this is about. That goes for the Bills, too.

Unfortunately, Araiza and his attorney (and the Bills, to some extent) have helped out Mr. Gilleon by seeming to be thoroughly unprepared for this assault. I'm not impressed...

Exactly. This has been public for less than 24 hours. What's happening on this board is exactly what Mr. Gilleon wanted to happen: Dump a seemingly overwhelming amount of information into the public sphere through social media, without any context or balance, and hope that as many people as possible make up their minds before hearing Araiza's side of the story, thereby putting pressure on Araiza and the Bills to capitulate. Lots of folks here taking the bait...

Why not just ignore it?

You are relying almost 100 percent on the allegations made by the plaintiff's attorney. Are you willing to give Araiza the opportunity to respond and defend himself? Can you think of any other well-known cases like this where the facts turned out to be other than as initially presented by the complainant and her lawyer?

Ok. It sounded like you were accepting the plaintiff's story just because it had not been expressly rebutted (yet) by Araiza...

What does the victim's diary say? (I'm trying to keep up, but this pesky job keeps getting in the way...)

You are reciting allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as if they are established facts because no one has expressly rebutted them in the 24 hours since the lawsuit was filed. That's just not the way it works. It's unfortunate that Araiza doesn't have more capable counsel, but you would do well not to take Mr. Gilleon's assertions (any of them) as facts.

Absolutely true. A lot of lawyers (especially defense lawyers) think it's always better to say nothing to the media...it's a common misconception and it could not be more wrong.

I don't believe he was ever put on the Commissioner's Exempt List. Houston just held him out.

I don't doubt that there's a tape, but I would put absolutely zero faith in what Mr. Gilleon tells me is or is not on said tape.

I agree that teams have extremely broad leeway with regard to releasing players, but the players still have protections under the CBA in that regard.

Watson's case was investigated for many months by the league and the authorities and involved at least 24 different accusers. And Watson never went on the exempt list.

True that they get released all the time, but they are nonetheless protected by a collective bargaining agreement. They are not employees at will.

Exactly. Many here are ready to throw this guy overboard based entirely on what a plaintiff's attorney is saying happened. Not very smart, or fair.

How do you know he's on tape admitting that? Has the tape been released or are you relying on what a plaintiff's lawyer is telling you is on the tape? And your legal conclusion is simply wrong.

And again, almost 100% of the information that's publicly available at this point is coming from a plaintiff's lawyer.

No, they cannot. They are bound by the terms of the CBA. They can cut a player, but the player has the right to file a grievance if he believes the team's action violates the CBA.

You appear to be basing this extreme opinion--kick this guy off the Bills' roster before there's any sort of adjudication or, to our knowledge a thorough investigation--on what's been said by a plaintiff's lawyer and what's been alleged in the plaintiff's complaint. I don't think that's prudent. If I'm wrong about that, tell me what else you're basing your opinion on.

No, it's not and no you can't. Players are union members and their employment is subject to a collective bargaining agreement. They are not "at-will" employees.

Which is why in most states the age of consent is lower, and why the prosecution has to prove that there was no reasonable mistake about the girl’s true age, and why “statutory rape” between people of those ages is almost never prosecuted unless there are other aggravating circumstances.

Let me repeat myself: he doesn’t have to prove it.

It’s not a defense. No reasonable mistake as to age is an element of the crime that has to be proven by the state.